Hogwarts Legacy - Whimsical Wizardry

[Hawki]

It's always that and "Merlin was a Slytherin"! Merlin, the one character Rowling does not own and is essentially a throwaway footnote in a book.

Slytherins are otherwise uniformly characterized as evil and/or assholes.

Um, Albus and Severus? Leta? That's not including Slytherins with redemption arcs (e.g. Draco, Snape).

To be clear, absolutely Slytherin gets the lion's share of assholes in the books, and canonically, more dark wizards have come from Slytherin than the other houses, these are facts that aren't in dispute. Arguably doesn't help that Sirius, whose family were traditionally Slytherins, ended up being a Gryffindor But even in the scope of the original seven books, shades of grey are steadily added (Slughorn, Draco operating under Duress, Snape, etc.), to the point where by Cursed Child, the protagonists are Slytherins (this isn't a Merlin thing, this is a "so obvious you can't miss it thing," unless you want to somehow claim that the protagonists of the work aren't actually the protagonists).

Would the original seven have been better had there been more moral ambiguity from the outset? Eh, probably. But "Slytherins are mostly antagonists" and "most Slytherins are evil" are two different statements.

 

[SilentPony]

Um, Albus and Severus? Leta? That's not including Slytherins with redemption arcs (e.g. Draco, Snape).

To be clear, absolutely Slytherin gets the lion's share of assholes in the books, and canonically, more dark wizards have come from Slytherin than the other houses, these are facts that aren't in dispute. Arguably doesn't help that Sirius, whose family were traditionally Slytherins, ended up being a Gryffindor But even in the scope of the original seven books, shades of grey are steadily added (Slughorn, Draco operating under Duress, Snape, etc.), to the point where by Cursed Child, the protagonists are Slytherins (this isn't a Merlin thing, this is a "so obvious you can't miss it thing," unless you want to somehow claim that the protagonists of the work aren't actually the protagonists).

Would the original seven have been better had there been more moral ambiguity from the outset? Eh, probably. But "Slytherins are mostly antagonists" and "most Slytherins are evil" are two different statements.

Did Snape and Draco get redemption arcs? Or did they just not get punished for their crimes? Like Draco and his family fuck off during the giant final battle, sure, but that's all. They just don't actively continue killing people. They did plenty before, and didn't get punished for it. Did something happen after the books to give him redemption?
And Snape's "redemption" arc was that even though he was an abusive, lying, sniveling, racist, murderous asshole, it was okay because...he wanted to rape Harry's mom and didn't get the chance while she was alive.
Like Snape is evil, straight up. Even if his actions were "for the greater good" his actions and role was that of an evil person doing evil.
The Nazi double-agents in World War 2 who sold secrets to the Allies were still Nazis.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Grindlewald was going to do it. Not "they."

You're going in an endless loop here. I can't tell if you're more mad that Grindlewald was able to infiltrate MACUSA, or that MACUSA practices capital punishment. From a storytelling perspective it's irrelevant because we're never shown how Grindie managed to impersonate Percival, we can take the writer at writ that he managed to do so. From a worldbuilding standpoint...yes, and? MACUSA practices capital punishment and segregation. No-one explicitly comments on the former, the latter is treated as a bad thing by characters (e.g. Newt) and by musical cues. We can safely assume that Grindie is working outside the bounds of the law because he's already broken the law, and doesn't tell "Steve" that he's taking characters to be executed.

So Grindelwald pretended to be 3 people in a department that doesn't doublecheck shit?

Says the person who's seen Rise of Skywalker and has to have basic things explained about the movie.

lmao

Even if you claim it's a retcon (it certainly made me go "wait, what? when I read it ages ago, though I wouldn't call it one), the retcon hasn't been retconned, so the current lore as it stands is that witch-hunting steadily became more intense, and explains a lot of anti-Muggle sentiment.

Post hoc, because it's a bad story

There's a lot wrong in that statement, but back to your original claim, you really think that the reason people dislike the ending of GoT is that Westeros doesn't become a democracy by the end of it?

I don't think there's a singular reason and it's a fantastically dishonest way of arguing to try and pin me to saying otherwise

It shows the fleet, it shows the cultists, it shows the Sith troopers. As much as I dislike Rise of Skywalker, that the cultists are Sith is explicitly confirmed, and that the fleet was on Exegol is again self-evident.

And you just correctly assumed that the cultists piloting the largest fleet in the galaxy ever full of ships rivaling the Death Star in power was the brainwashed kids of this random sect of, until now, unknown cultists instead of y'know, the ex-Imperials already established in the story?

That's a reach. Then again, Rise of Skywalker is a crime against cinema and basic storytelling, so...

That's not a Wookiepeedia thing, that's a common sense thing. If a game, or anything is published in an IP, the default position is to treat it as canon unless there's significant inconcistencies within it and/or there's explicit confirmation that it isn't.

And if videogames AREN'T explicitly canon, then I assume you're not treating Hogwarts Legacy as canon either? Because otherwise you're just picking and choosing.

...I'm not treating Hogwarts Legacy as canon, same was as I don't treat any of the myriad of Star Wars games as canon

The hive mind example was to distinguish between free will and hive minds in general. The demons reference was to demons in general, not DnD demons.

But by your example, if orcs have free thinking in deciding their goals, then surely that counts as free will. For instance, orcs are often depicted as monsters in various fantasy pieces (Lord of the Rings, Warhammer, etc.), all of them still have free will.

Orcs having free will in Lord of the Rings is debatable and I'm not enough of a Tolkien head to debate it, Orcs in Warhammer are Chaotic Violent, no more or less inherently evil than Dwarves or Humans (although saying so would make the Dwarves and Humans very cross with me)

Correct me if I'm wrong:

*Orcs in DnD were retconned
*People were aggravated that it happened, especially for the reasoning behind it
*Dungeons and Dragons operates on the principle of a shared multiverse, where every campaign setting is canonical, as well as homebrew settings
*Orcs being retconned in one, more, or all of these settings is, by definition, a change to the setting, because you've taken what was previously stated as fact (orcs are evil) to new canon (actually, orcs aren't all evil).

You are wrong. The monster manual is setting neutral and doesn't override any setting specific information. Clarification that Orcs aren't always evil in the same way that Drow aren't always evil has been a long time coming given Drizzt Do'Urden is over 30 years old. If they'd made this change 20 or even 10 years ago, it'd be entirely uncontroversial as most people already play that way, it's our modern era of profitable culture wars that made this an issue

Also, homebrew settings are only canon to the relevant home groups and not the D&D property, owned by Wizards of the Coast, subsidiary of Hasbro, obviously.

 

[Hawki]

Did Snape and Draco get redemption arcs? Or did they just not get punished for their crimes? Like Draco and his family fuck off during the giant final battle, sure, but that's all. They just don't actively continue killing people. They did plenty before, and didn't get punished for it. Did something happen after the books to give him redemption?

I'd say Draco has a redemption arc via Cursed Child. If this was confined to the original septology, no, I wouldn't say he's redeemed.

And Snape's "redemption" arc was that even though he was an abusive, lying, sniveling, racist, murderous asshole, it was okay because...he wanted to rape Harry's mom and didn't get the chance while she was alive.
Like Snape is evil, straight up. Even if his actions were "for the greater good" his actions and role was that of an evil person doing evil.
The Nazi double-agents in World War 2 who sold secrets to the Allies were still Nazis.

I completely disagree.

You can make the case that during the First Wizarding War, Snape's actions are entirely driven by self-interest, but that doesn't apply to his actions in the second, and everything up to that. Lily's dead, Snape has every opportunity to genuinely serve Voldemort, but he doesn't. Even after Voldemort takes over in the alternate timeline in Cursed Child, he still secretly works against him, even sacrificing his own life in the cause.

Snape isn't a paragon of virtue, but "evil?" Hardly.

Also, Nazi double-agents (or double-agents of anyone) are Nazis by technicality. If you're a double agent selling secrets, by definition, you're not allied to the cause you were originally part of.

So Grindelwald pretended to be 3 people in a department that doesn't doublecheck shit?

I'll grant you that one.

lmao

Not an argument.

I don't think there's a singular reason and it's a fantastically dishonest way of arguing to try and pin me to saying otherwise

That was your original insinuation. You've been dishonest this entire time.

And you just correctly assumed that the cultists piloting the largest fleet in the galaxy ever full of ships rivaling the Death Star in power was the brainwashed kids of this random sect of, until now, unknown cultists instead of y'know, the ex-Imperials already established in the story?

I find this hilarious. You just claimed I was focusing on "one singular reason," now you're throwing back one singular element.

Again, let's go over it:

-We see the cultists on Exegol.
-We see the ships on Exegol.
-It stands to reason that the Sith Eternal was involved in their maintenance to at least some extent
-No, I haven't seen any brainwashed kids, but that's one small part of the overall picture.

I already broke down the tweet ages back. The first part was obvious, the second part can be taken through implication.

...I'm not treating Hogwarts Legacy as canon, same was as I don't treat any of the myriad of Star Wars games as canon

So, you accuse me of dishonesty, but you consider yourself entitled to choose what is and isn't canon. Wow. Just wow.

Anyway, if you choose not to treat the games as canon, then this is an absolute waste of time.

Edit: Seriously, I don't understand this mindset. If you have such a low opinion of games, why are you even on a website that's mostly devoted to games?

Orcs having free will in Lord of the Rings is debatable

Feel free to debate it. Or not. I'm sure you'll just choose what is and isn't canon to suit your argument.

Orcs in Warhammer are Chaotic Violent, no more or less inherently evil than Dwarves or Humans (although saying so would make the Dwarves and Humans very cross with me)

...which is relevant to free will how, exactly?

Orcs, humans, and dwarfs all possess free will. Creatures like skeletons and zombies don't possess free will. Some daemons clearly possess free will (e.g. Belekor), some daemons don't seem to (lesser demons), some are in grey areas. The level of violence is irrelevant to the question of free will.

You are wrong. The monster manual is setting neutral and doesn't override any setting specific information.

I'm sorry, no doubt you understand more about DnD, but this doesn't make any sense.

I've already cited the multiverse aspect. If the multiverse aspect is incorrect, then the DnD lore wiki is wrong. If it is correct, then somehow, the nature of creatures within a multiverse can be changed, but somehow the setting isn't changed?

If, for instance, orcs in Warhammer are no longer brutes but actually a multi-dimensional, empathetic species, surely you'd call that a setting change?

Clarification that Orcs aren't always evil in the same way that Drow aren't always evil has been a long time coming given Drizzt Do'Urden is over 30 years old.

Isn't the whole schtick with Drizzt that he's very much the exception to the rule?

If they'd made this change 20 or even 10 years ago, it'd be entirely uncontroversial as most people already play that way, it's our modern era of profitable culture wars that made this an issue

I really can't see that. There's been retcons before in various IPs done for various reasons, they're usually controversial regardless of any external baggage.

Also, homebrew settings are only canon to the relevant home groups and not the D&D property, owned by Wizards of the Coast, subsidiary of Hasbro, obviously.

If that's true, then the wiki needs updating.

 

[SilentPony]

SNIP

Is the Cursed Child even canon? And how much of an alternate reality count towards another realities character?
And with Snape...explain his treatment of Harry. Or indeed anyone else's treatment at his hands.
If the dude was a good person the entire time, why is he an abusive dick? Or is it more accurate to say Snape was always meant to be evil, and it was changed for the final few books by studio executives because he was a pretty one-dimensional character? Like Snape's "redemption" arc in the novels is that its just stated he's redeemed. He doesn't actually do anything good, its just his evil actions are retroactively called "good" actions. He was still a batshit insane, racist, evil fucker who we're just told wasn't all that bad because...

 

[Baffle]

We didn't have any of these problems with the Dragonlance games, which you should all go and play.

 

[Hawki]

Is the Cursed Child even canon?

Sorry, I just find this hilarious that I'm yet again in a question as to what's canon and what isn't.

Anyway, yes, by any indication, Cursed Child is canon.

And how much of an alternate reality count towards another realities character?

Alternate reality in the sense of a divergent timeline.

The point of divergence (or points, technically) occur in Goblet. This is still the same Snape who's had the exact same life experiences up to this point. Snape, faced with a world where Voldemort wins, still acts against him. That gives tremendous insight into his character.

And with Snape...explain his treatment of Harry. Or indeed anyone else's treatment at his hands.
If the dude was a good person the entire time, why is he an abusive dick? Or is it more accurate to say Snape was always meant to be evil, and it was changed for the final few books by studio executives because he was a pretty one-dimensional character? Like Snape's "redemption" arc in the novels is that its just stated he's redeemed. He doesn't actually do anything good, its just his evil actions are retroactively called "good" actions. He was still a batshit insane, racist, evil fucker who we're just told wasn't all that bad because...

I said up above that Snape isn't a paragon of virtue. There's different adjectives beyond "good" and "evil." I've no idea where you're getting your sources from that executives forced change on Snape, nor the idea that Snape's actions are retroactive (there's plenty of foreshadowing throughout the books as to Snape's history and nature). He serves as an undercover agent for a good portion of the books, loses his own life, does it to honour Lily's memory, etc. Even in the first book alone, he saves Harry from Quirrel, despite loathing Harry because of James.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

Um, Albus and Severus? Leta?

Extended media of questionable canon, most of which wasn't even authored by Rowling. I had to look up a fan Wikia to even discern who you were talking about. Every Slytherin in the Harry Potter books is a piece of shit. Which isn't to say that you can't be a POS outside Slytherin. But everyone and their parents in that house definitely is.

Draco is a bully, a cheat, a racist, an abuser, a thief, a traitor and a generally spiteful venomous little piece of shit whose big redemption apparently is also not being a murderer.

Snape is also a hateful bully who physically and verbally abuses children, plays favorites, sabotages students and chooses to harass the child of the girl who friendzoned him in highschool. His big redemption is murdering someone because he was told to.

Slytherin sucks. Slytherins suck.

 

[Hawki]

...God I'm tired.

Don't take this personally, but I think this is a case where we're unable to agree because we're not accepting the same facts. For instance:

Extended media of questionable canon, most of which wasn't even authored by Rowling.

Again, I completely disagree. I've already cited a direct statement that Cursed Child is canon. I haven't been able to find a direct statement that Fantastic Beasts is canon, but to me, the question itself is nonsensical. Even if Rowling had no involvement in either work, I don't see any basis to not see the films as canon. They're officially published works from a company that has a significant stake in the IP (there's a reason why "Wizarding World" is used as a blanket term, for instance). If one wanted to claim that any of this is non-canon, to me, they have the burden of proof when doing so. But even after providing direct proof (see Cursed Child), it apparently still isn't enough.

I had to look up a fan Wikia to even discern who you were talking about. Every Slytherin in the Harry Potter books is a piece of shit. Which isn't to say that you can't be a POS outside Slytherin. But everyone and their parents in that house definitely is.

Well again, even in the books, we can take Slughorn as an example, but I've already gone over this.

Draco is a bully, a cheat, a racist, an abuser, a thief, a traitor and a generally spiteful venomous little piece of shit whose big redemption apparently is also not being a murderer.

And again, this is a case where we're operating from different facts.

Here's the thing - if Draco was never involved in anything post-Hallows, I'd actually agree with most of that statement. Draco, by the end of Deathly Hallows, isn't redeemed. He's still a shit. He's a shit with some layers of sympathy (opertating under duress), but still a shit. He doesn't do anything particuarly heroic.

If, however, we factor in Cursed Child, I'd say that Draco is redeemed, or at least, redeemed to an extent. He loves Scorpius and does everything he can to make his life better (if anything, Harry's more of an asshole in CC than Draco is), clearly loved Astoria, and stands by Harry to the end as they fight Delphi. Whether this is a redemption or not is another matter, but clearly, the Draco of 20+ years is different from the Draco of the original septology.

Snape is also a hateful bully who physically and verbally abuses children, plays favorites, sabotages students and chooses to harass the child of the girl who friendzoned him in highschool. His big redemption is murdering someone because he was told to.

I've already discussed Snape up above, so I won't repeat myself here. Let's just say that I agree with the letter of what you wrote, but not the spirit.

Again, it's potentially going down the same rabbit hole. If discussing Snape's character, by all rights, I should be able to factor in Cursed Child. If, however, you refuse to consider Cursed Child canon, then there's no point discussing any of it.

Slytherin sucks. Slytherins suck.

In the original septology? Yeah, pretty much.

In the overall lore? That's more debatable.

Anyway, I've already gone over this debate, but if we're operating from different sets of facts, then it's academic.

 

[Hades]

Did Snape and Draco get redemption arcs?

The Malfoy's don't really get a redemption arc. Its kinda damning that they only turn on Voldemort after its clear they have already lost all power, influence and security they once had. And rather than actively defy Voldie they spend the last battle just looking out for themselves and not directly opposing the heroes, instead of directly helping them. Only Draco's mom can claim to have done something helpful and important.

Draco managed the incredibly low bar of not wanting to be a murderer. But he's still a racist, a classist and a bully. His father is even worse because he's all that and still a fascist, just a fascist who got spat out by his own fascist political party.

 

[Gordon_4]

Um, Albus and Severus? Leta? That's not including Slytherins with redemption arcs (e.g. Draco, Snape).

To be clear, absolutely Slytherin gets the lion's share of assholes in the books, and canonically, more dark wizards have come from Slytherin than the other houses, these are facts that aren't in dispute. Arguably doesn't help that Sirius, whose family were traditionally Slytherins, ended up being a Gryffindor But even in the scope of the original seven books, shades of grey are steadily added (Slughorn, Draco operating under Duress, Snape, etc.), to the point where by Cursed Child, the protagonists are Slytherins (this isn't a Merlin thing, this is a "so obvious you can't miss it thing," unless you want to somehow claim that the protagonists of the work aren't actually the protagonists).

Would the original seven have been better had there been more moral ambiguity from the outset? Eh, probably. But "Slytherins are mostly antagonists" and "most Slytherins are evil" are two different statements.

The problem is, as I see it, Slytherin starts merely as antagonists; Philosopher’s Stone through Prisoner of Azkaban era Draco is just a snooty, rich asshole who’s catchphrase may as well be “My father will hear of this!”. He throws around the mud blood slur a bit then but with his age I figure he heard his deeply racist and classist father use it and is just going for easy button pushing as bullies are wont to do. But from Goblet of Fire onward, he really ramps up the rhetoric but his housemates don’t seem to care. Not a single one says to him “Whoa, ease up turbo” or asks “Dude, what the fuck is wrong with you?”

Mind you, since the movies were my gateway drug, I’m still confused how the Death Eaters weren’t drowned in shell casings after they blew up the Millennium Bridge. That isn’t something the British government of the time of the movie would simply accept as an internal matter.

 

[Hades]

Well again, even in the books, we can take Slughorn as an example, but I've already gone over this.

Slughorn is definitely the best Slytherin has to offer. He's genuinely a likable guy, and if sufficiently pushed into the corner a noble one too. Still, its not a good look for Slytherin if the most noble figure they have to offer is still somewhat prejudiced and low key corrupt.

 

[Godzillarich(aka tf2godz)]

Well to add more fuel to the fire.


How did this guy find another job after that

 

[Gordon_4]

Well to add more fuel to the fire.


How did this guy find another job after that

Depends if they did a background check on him or not. If he wasn’t working with children or vulnerable people there may not have been any cause under their hiring policy to do one.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

So, you accuse me of dishonesty, but you consider yourself entitled to choose what is and isn't canon. Wow. Just wow.

Anyway, if you choose not to treat the games as canon, then this is an absolute waste of time.

Edit: Seriously, I don't understand this mindset. If you have such a low opinion of games, why are you even on a website that's mostly devoted to games?

I love games. When game tie ins of other media happens it's typically non-canon, otherwise that time you spent 6 hours faffing about with sidequests collecting precisely 25 ferns or whatever the fuck while a village was burning to the ground is also canon. Which is ridiculous. Hell, there's technically two endings. At least one of which is non-canon, along with, likely, the vast majority of gameplay. That's just how that works. Mass Effect had 3, all of which are simultaneously canon and not-canon until a sequel game happens, after which 2/3rds of them stop being canon.

Feel free to debate it. Or not. I'm sure you'll just choose what is and isn't canon to suit your argument.

I don't like debating without primary sources

Orcs, humans, and dwarfs all possess free will. Creatures like skeletons and zombies don't possess free will. Some daemons clearly possess free will (e.g. Belekor), some daemons don't seem to (lesser demons), some are in grey areas. The level of violence is irrelevant to the question of free will.

Daemons of any size and power don't have free will, they just have personalities. They're very much bound to their inherent magical nature. The only time that's different is if a formerly free creature *becomes* a daemon, and that only lasts until they're entirely corrupted. The Chaotic Violent statement was a joke, because Orcs in Warhammer are funny that way

I'm sorry, no doubt you understand more about DnD, but this doesn't make any sense.

I've already cited the multiverse aspect. If the multiverse aspect is incorrect, then the DnD lore wiki is wrong. If it is correct, then somehow, the nature of creatures within a multiverse can be changed, but somehow the setting isn't changed?

You are simultaneously over and under thinking a statblock and that's hilarious. Can't wait to explain to my friends that our home games are official Wizards of the Coast canon.

If, for instance, orcs in Warhammer are no longer brutes but actually a multi-dimensional, empathetic species, surely you'd call that a setting change?

Not really. They got art and stuff

Isn't the whole schtick with Drizzt that he's very much the exception to the rule?

If not all Drow are evil, than not all Drow are evil. It's very simple.

I really can't see that. There's been retcons before in various IPs done for various reasons, they're usually controversial regardless of any external baggage.

Don't see how. 3rd edition already listed orcs as Often Evil. If anything, until the recent change, the 4th and 5th editions were regressive and changing it back is a return to tradition.

If that's true, then the wiki needs updating.

Probably, fan wikis are notoriously unreliable. Pretty sure it's just not saying what you think it is though

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

...God I'm tired.

Don't take this personally, but I think this is a case where we're unable to agree because we're not accepting the same facts. For instance:



Again, I completely disagree. I've already cited a direct statement that Cursed Child is canon. I haven't been able to find a direct statement that Fantastic Beasts is canon, but to me, the question itself is nonsensical. Even if Rowling had no involvement in either work, I don't see any basis to not see the films as canon. They're officially published works from a company that has a significant stake in the IP (there's a reason why "Wizarding World" is used as a blanket term, for instance). If one wanted to claim that any of this is non-canon, to me, they have the burden of proof when doing so. But even after providing direct proof (see Cursed Child), it apparently still isn't enough.



Well again, even in the books, we can take Slughorn as an example, but I've already gone over this.



And again, this is a case where we're operating from different facts.

Here's the thing - if Draco was never involved in anything post-Hallows, I'd actually agree with most of that statement. Draco, by the end of Deathly Hallows, isn't redeemed. He's still a shit. He's a shit with some layers of sympathy (opertating under duress), but still a shit. He doesn't do anything particuarly heroic.

If, however, we factor in Cursed Child, I'd say that Draco is redeemed, or at least, redeemed to an extent. He loves Scorpius and does everything he can to make his life better (if anything, Harry's more of an asshole in CC than Draco is), clearly loved Astoria, and stands by Harry to the end as they fight Delphi. Whether this is a redemption or not is another matter, but clearly, the Draco of 20+ years is different from the Draco of the original septology.



I've already discussed Snape up above, so I won't repeat myself here. Let's just say that I agree with the letter of what you wrote, but not the spirit.

Again, it's potentially going down the same rabbit hole. If discussing Snape's character, by all rights, I should be able to factor in Cursed Child. If, however, you refuse to consider Cursed Child canon, then there's no point discussing any of it.



In the original septology? Yeah, pretty much.

In the overall lore? That's more debatable.

Anyway, I've already gone over this debate, but if we're operating from different sets of facts, then it's academic.

I don't care whatever JK tweets about her books or really anything in general. The Harry Potter series is seven novels long. Cursed Child is a mediocre fanfiction-level play some hack was commissioned to write after she sold out. I don't give two fucks what she decrees canon or not in her Twitter rants. That includes her tangent about wizards shitting their pants until they adopted muggle plumbing.

Draco sucks. Crabbe sucks. Goyle sucks. Pansy sucks. Snape sucks. Blaise sucks. The Baron sucks. Bellatrix sucks. Voldie sucks. All Slytherins suck. Slughorn, at his best, is a likeable yet bumbling imbecile directly responsible for the ethos and rise of Magic Hitler, and at his most gallant was pressured into fighting him only after being given an ultimatum.

It's a poisonous, evil house filled with bullies, goons and assholes and it's directly responsible for every evil the good guys ever face in the books.

 

[Gordon_4]

I don't care whatever JK tweets about her books or really anything in general. The Harry Potter series is seven novels long. Cursed Child is a mediocre fanfiction-level play some hack was commissioned to write after she sold out. I don't give two fucks what she decrees canon or not in her Twitter rants. That includes her tangent about wizards shitting their pants until they adopted muggle plumbing.

Draco sucks. Crabbe sucks. Goyle sucks. Pansy sucks. Snape sucks. Blaise sucks. The Baron sucks. Bellatrix sucks. Voldie sucks. All Slytherins suck. Slughorn, at his best, is a likeable yet bumbling imbecile directly responsible for the ethos and rise of Magic Hitler, and at his most gallant was pressured into fighting him only after being given an ultimatum.

It's a poisonous, evil house filled with bullies, goons and assholes and it's directly responsible for every evil the good guys ever face in the books.

Well, almost all of the evil. Unless of course Umbridge was a Slytherin when she was at school..........

 

[Terminal Blue]

Goblins already have a defined appearance in folklore that the books/films represent, plus a love of gold/skill in metalurgy in numerous settings. Putting them in a bank isn't a big leap from goblin tropes that already exist.

Goblins in British folklore are small, mischievous and deceptive trickster spirits. There is no standardized depiction of folkloric goblins, and until the 19th century literary and visual culture didn't give much thought to folklore so we don't find many illustrations or descriptions. 19th century illustrations often depict them with monstrous or animal features or as anthropomorphic animals. Tolkien established the convention of goblins as essentially small orcs, and later works of derivative fantasy like D&D and Warhammer have generally kept that while bringing back the original trickster idea of goblins as sneaky and deceptive.

I'm not saying there's no depictions of goblins which associate them with gold or metallurgy, but frankly I think that's a reach, and you'd be better off talking directly about the way that deceptiveness and duplicitousness is often associated with merchants and usurers. In the 19th century poem Goblin Market, for example, the goblins are merchants who sell fruit. It is a thinly veiled allegory about the dangers of sex work, so both literally and figuratively they're not actually trading for money, but yeah, there's definitely a trope of associating the common qualities of goblins, like duplicitiousness, with greed and in particular with people who handle money..

..I wonder where that trope comes from?

Anyway, let's cut to the giant fucking elephant in the room. A lot of things about Harry Potter goblins can be written off as perfectly innocent references to tropes in existing media (although gee I sure wonder why media has those tropes). What brings the whole thing crashing down is the one thing you didn't mention, the one thing that is absolutely unambiguous because there is only one source from which it could have originated, and that is the idea of a conspiracy by one particular race, particularly a discriminated underclass renowned for being sneaky, cunning and duplicitous (and also greedy, because again there's just some unfathomable reason why those traits keep cropping up together) to advance the collective power of their race at the expense of everyone else through a deliberate strategy of establishing control over the financial system.

That is conspiratorial anti-semitism. You cannot include all of those elements and not be referencing, consciously or unconsciously, conspiratorial anti-semitism. The only question is why, because none of this would be a problem if there was the slightest, tiniest justification for that reference existing.

 

[Terminal Blue]

It's a poisonous, evil house filled with bullies, goons and assholes and it's directly responsible for every evil the good guys ever face in the books.

You forgot, it's also a house that can easily be warped into a bunch of dark, brooding bad-boy sexymen in leather pants.

10/10. Best house ever.

 

[PsychedelicDiamond]

Goblins in British folklore are small, mischievous and deceptive trickster spirits. There is no standardized depiction of folkloric goblins, and until the 19th century literary and visual culture didn't give much thought to folklore so we don't find many illustrations or descriptions. 19th century illustrations often depict them with monstrous or animal features or as anthropomorphic animals. Tolkien established the convention of goblins as essentially small orcs, and later works of derivative fantasy like D&D and Warhammer have generally kept that while bringing back the original trickster idea of goblins as sneaky and deceptive.

I'm not saying there's no depictions of goblins which associate them with gold or metallurgy, but frankly I think that's a reach, and you'd be better off talking directly about the way that deceptiveness and duplicitousness is often associated with merchants and usurers. In the 19th century poem Goblin Market, for example, the goblins are merchants who sell fruit. It is a thinly veiled allegory about the dangers of sex work, so both literally and figuratively they're not actually trading for money, but yeah, there's definitely a trope of associating the common qualities of goblins, like duplicitiousness, with greed and in particular with people who handle money..

..I wonder where that trope comes from?

Anyway, let's cut to the giant fucking elephant in the room. A lot of things about Harry Potter goblins can be written off as perfectly innocent references to tropes in existing media (although gee I sure wonder why media has those tropes). What brings the whole thing crashing down is the one thing you didn't mention, the one thing that is absolutely unambiguous because there is only one source from which it could have originated, and that is the idea of a conspiracy by one particular race, particularly a discriminated underclass renowned for being sneaky, cunning and duplicitous (and also greedy, because again there's just some unfathomable reason why those traits keep cropping up together) to advance the collective power of their race at the expense of everyone else through a deliberate strategy of establishing control over the financial system.

That is conspiratorial anti-semitism. You cannot include all of those elements and not be referencing, consciously or unconsciously, conspiratorial anti-semitism. The only question is why, because it's none of this would be a problem if there was the slightest, tiniest justification for that reference existing.

For what it's worth, in the books the Goblins were never depicted as conspiring against humanity (Though there were some references to historical "goblin-uprisings") and in the game the goblin terrorist group is explicitly not affiliated with the goblins who are running the bank.

I think the thing is, there is just enough aspects to the Goblins that seem like parallels to negative jewish stereotypes to make you do a double take and question whether it's intentional. Mind, people have also sometimes compared the standard fantasy (i.e. derived from Tolkien) depiction of Dwarves with Jews but that was always much more of a stretch. Well, Terry Pratchett's Disworld novels of course took and ran, and throroughly interrogated, those parallels. We're Disworld has highly secluded orthodox dwarven communities and their spiritual practices seem kind of derived from Kabbalah, but that was by design.

For what it's worth with the Harry Potter books it was really only after Rowling came out in favour of trans discrimination that people went over the series with a fine tooth comb and started to look for subtext that would indicate other morally questionable views. Of which there is... some. The Goblins, as sneaky, hook nosed bankers are pretty much the most obvious thing to latch onto, especially after the first movie adaptation showed the set for Gringotts interior with a pattern that resembles a star of David on the floor. Which was probably the point where at least someone should have noticed what it looks like, but it's not like I had made that connection until it was pointed out to me.

Other than that there is some weird stuff in there that seems more or less inherited from the kind of childrens books Rowling herself would have grown up on. Unsympathetic characters are fairly consistently described as bad looking. Some kind of morbid iconography associated with the non human races. It's slightly uncomfortable, but also pretty standard for fantasy novels.

There's also the fact that the wizard society is portrayed to equal parts as mysterious and exciting as it's depicted as kind of backwards and isolationist. And it never quite makes up its mind whether it's an escapist or a borderline dystopian world. I mean, wizards look down on everyone who is not them, including muggles, and by the time the books are set, in the 90's, they're only really starting to accept that wizards with muggle heritage should be treated equally. And the slavery of house elves is so ingrained in their culture that both sides widely take it for granted.

Which seems to have given a bit of whiplash to people who read it as kids and saw it as this whimsical, fantastical world and now return to it as adults, realising that it's actually pretty messed up in a lot of ways. But that is nothing I hold against the books, matter of fact I think that kind of cynical undercurrent is part of what made it a cross generational success.