Even ignoring the rest of the post, the idea of a Green Slytherin based off of Avada Kedavra is interesting for many reasons.
Let’s look at some of the implications:
Avada Kedavra and the Patronus Charm (2.0) are basically mutually exclusive. In order to cast the first, you must want someone dead for the sake of being dead, and in order to cast the latter you must value all life to the point of denying death altogether.
Avada Kedavra and the Patronus Charm (2.0) cancel each other out. We saw this in Azkaban, and at the time we probably assumed it was just a result of Quirrell and Harry’s magic going out of control, but on closer inspection it seems that both simply destroy the other, matter and antimatter style, which makes sense considering what type of magic they are created from. A magically created preference for death over life, and a magically created preference for life over death.
They both also follow the political lines, as you mention above. Avada Kedavra is more likely to be known and cast by those desperate for someone to hate, and the True Patronus is more likely to be cast by those who are trying to cooperate, simply because those mindsets are more likely to lead to those specific preferences.
Now that I think about it, the two groups are also the ‘Cooperators’ and the ‘Defectors’ in the Prisoner’s Dilemma.
The interesting question is if they are going to devolve into standard Green vs Blue political idiocy. If Harry has a controlling power, they may not, but I don’t think Draco has progressed enough as a rationalist to be able to avoid all those old lessons yet.
There is probably more here, but I need to sit down and think for five minutes, and do a quick read through of the archives.
This is true in canon. I would see no problem even in HPMOR with wizards casting Patroni and AKs. It’s only with Patronus 2.0 that there might be some incompatibility.
Yes, that was my point, it’s the True Patronus charm that is the exact opposite of AK, the Patronus Charm 1.0 is really a Dumbledore spell. It avoids fear of death by thinking about something else.
I’m still unconvinced about “Avada Kedavra and the Patronus Charm (2.0) cancel each other out”. My interpretation of it in Azkaban is more “Harry and Quirrel magic cancel each other when they interact” than anything related specifically for those spells.
For the rest, there is a significant difference which, while it doesn’t matter much in absolute, matters a lot of HPMOR, is that 11 yo can’t cast Avada Kedavra, while they can cast Patronus. So you can have 1st years in Hogwarts who are “Silver Slytherin” because they can cast Patronus, but you can’t have “Green Slytherin” that can cast AK in 1st year, because it’s too advanced magic for them.
That pulls a bit of the rug out from under that unsteady pile of pattern-matching.
This got downvoted to −2. If anyone would like to see fewer postings like the above, they can improve the odds that they’ll see the change they’d like by explaining what it is about the above post that was disliked.
I didn’t downvote it but I’d guess that one reason why some people did is that they thought it was rude and would prefer LW to be a more civil place.
(My initial reaction to your question about downvotes was: “Ah, I bet those people didn’t notice that the person being so rude was the same as the person whose ‘unsteady pile of pattern-matching’ they were being so rude about”—I was very surprised when I checked and found it was just garden-variety rudeness rather than self-deprecation.)
Our direct evidence doesn’t completely pan out, because of the uncertainty of the Quirrel reaction, yes. But even without that we have evidence for the underlying theory: ie: AK is Death>Life: the spell and PC2.0 is Life>Death: the spell.
I can post quotes from both of these, in fact, I would argue that the Harry and Moody conversation on Avada Kedavra exists for the sole purpose of including that data in the narrative. Remember, these are Harry’s words, a “magically expressed preference for death over life” and the Patronus Charm being cast by “rejecting death as the natural order.”
The Patronus defending against the AK makes sense in terms of what we know about the two spells, as well as the evidence from Azkaban, as others have noticed. Also, the Patronus responded to Harry’s desire to protect the Auror—the response of the Patronus seems more likely if it was a property of the spell rather than of the magic of the person casting the AK (weak evidence, sure).
Even ignoring the rest of the post, the idea of a Green Slytherin based off of Avada Kedavra is interesting for many reasons.
Let’s look at some of the implications:
Avada Kedavra and the Patronus Charm (2.0) are basically mutually exclusive. In order to cast the first, you must want someone dead for the sake of being dead, and in order to cast the latter you must value all life to the point of denying death altogether.
Avada Kedavra and the Patronus Charm (2.0) cancel each other out. We saw this in Azkaban, and at the time we probably assumed it was just a result of Quirrell and Harry’s magic going out of control, but on closer inspection it seems that both simply destroy the other, matter and antimatter style, which makes sense considering what type of magic they are created from. A magically created preference for death over life, and a magically created preference for life over death.
They both also follow the political lines, as you mention above. Avada Kedavra is more likely to be known and cast by those desperate for someone to hate, and the True Patronus is more likely to be cast by those who are trying to cooperate, simply because those mindsets are more likely to lead to those specific preferences.
Now that I think about it, the two groups are also the ‘Cooperators’ and the ‘Defectors’ in the Prisoner’s Dilemma.
The interesting question is if they are going to devolve into standard Green vs Blue political idiocy. If Harry has a controlling power, they may not, but I don’t think Draco has progressed enough as a rationalist to be able to avoid all those old lessons yet.
There is probably more here, but I need to sit down and think for five minutes, and do a quick read through of the archives.
It seems likely that many adult wizards (eg Snape) can cast both. Can’t remember if this is the case in canon or not.
This is true in canon. I would see no problem even in HPMOR with wizards casting Patroni and AKs. It’s only with Patronus 2.0 that there might be some incompatibility.
It seems vaguely possible that Harry’s Dark Side compartementalization might allow him to cast both AK and True Patronus.
Yes, that was my point, it’s the True Patronus charm that is the exact opposite of AK, the Patronus Charm 1.0 is really a Dumbledore spell. It avoids fear of death by thinking about something else.
I’m still unconvinced about “Avada Kedavra and the Patronus Charm (2.0) cancel each other out”. My interpretation of it in Azkaban is more “Harry and Quirrel magic cancel each other when they interact” than anything related specifically for those spells.
For the rest, there is a significant difference which, while it doesn’t matter much in absolute, matters a lot of HPMOR, is that 11 yo can’t cast Avada Kedavra, while they can cast Patronus. So you can have 1st years in Hogwarts who are “Silver Slytherin” because they can cast Patronus, but you can’t have “Green Slytherin” that can cast AK in 1st year, because it’s too advanced magic for them.
Thanks.
That pulls a bit of the rug out from under that unsteady pile of pattern-matching.
This got downvoted to −2. If anyone would like to see fewer postings like the above, they can improve the odds that they’ll see the change they’d like by explaining what it is about the above post that was disliked.
Thank you, in advance for your help with this.
I didn’t downvote it but I’d guess that one reason why some people did is that they thought it was rude and would prefer LW to be a more civil place.
(My initial reaction to your question about downvotes was: “Ah, I bet those people didn’t notice that the person being so rude was the same as the person whose ‘unsteady pile of pattern-matching’ they were being so rude about”—I was very surprised when I checked and found it was just garden-variety rudeness rather than self-deprecation.)
I think it is self-deprecation, ie it refers to this not this.
Aha, I think you’re right. Score one for my intuitive self-deprecation sensors, then.
I have no idea. Upvoted for admitting you’re (more likely to be) wrong, though.
Well, it’s −1 now, since I often upvote comments with negative totals that I think don’t deserve them. Sorry that I can’t help you more!
Less worried about downvotes I’ve received, more interested in the things that lead to me getting them.
Thanks, though.
Our direct evidence doesn’t completely pan out, because of the uncertainty of the Quirrel reaction, yes. But even without that we have evidence for the underlying theory: ie: AK is Death>Life: the spell and PC2.0 is Life>Death: the spell.
I can post quotes from both of these, in fact, I would argue that the Harry and Moody conversation on Avada Kedavra exists for the sole purpose of including that data in the narrative. Remember, these are Harry’s words, a “magically expressed preference for death over life” and the Patronus Charm being cast by “rejecting death as the natural order.”
Slitherin --> Slytherin
The Patronus defending against the AK makes sense in terms of what we know about the two spells, as well as the evidence from Azkaban, as others have noticed. Also, the Patronus responded to Harry’s desire to protect the Auror—the response of the Patronus seems more likely if it was a property of the spell rather than of the magic of the person casting the AK (weak evidence, sure).
See, however, Lesath Lestrange.
That guy is in fifth year, though.