Hogwarts Legacy - Whimsical Wizardry

[TheMysteriousGX]

Eh...let's be fair here. Free Will is one of those things that's so hotly debated as a direct consequence of it being so inconsistently defined. Depending on who you ask, it can mean anything from "has the capacity to make any choice" all the way to "tells fate exactly how it can fuck itself", with pitstops at every permutation of "able to defy its very nature" and "does not count if the decision is coerced", never mind the "you must have at least this much pristine soul to ride" layovers.

For ease of example, does the classic wish-twisting djinn have free will? Some will say that djinn don't have true souls and therefore argue that it's impossible. Others will dispute that premise and say yes on those grounds. Both cases presume the presence of a soul to be the determinant factor. Some will argue that it's irrelevant and that the djinn being compelled to grant wishes means it does not have free will and only exists in the confines of its purpose. Some will argue that the fact that it can and will twist wishes constitutes rebellion and thus evidences free will. Still more will dispute that the wish-twisting is just in the djinn's nature and thus doesn't evidence free will. Others will qualify their answer on whether or not the djinn can exist freely of its duty. And so on, ad infinitum.

...Or, having invoked that phrase, how about Owlman's perspective in Crisis on Two Earths that the very concept of Free Will and choice is an illusion because every possible outcome exists across the multiverse? That every decision is meaningless and its significance invalidated because on another earth you've already made the opposite choice? Is Terminator 3 anti-Free Will because it spells out that Judgment Day can't be stopped? Was Terminator 2 pro-Free Will because it ends on the hopeful note that the future could be changed? Is the existence of time travel invalidate the concept of free will unless the timeline is as terrifyingly malleable as it is in Back to the Future? The list goes on and there probably as many different opinions on what constitutes Free Will as there are people who you ask the questions. Everone thinks they know what it is, but nobody ever seems to be able to agree on the criteria.

Look, I love me a good philosophical debate but both D&D and Warhammer have cut and dry answers regarding demons and that answer is No.

 

[Asita]

Look, I love me a good philosophical debate but both D&D and Warhammer have cut and dry answers regarding demons and that answer is No.

True. I'm just saying that, regardless, it's unsurprising that people will still disagree - sometimes quite belligerently - with the official line because they're working from completely different premises, and that it makes this particular topic a bit of a minefield.

 

[Hawki]

Mate, nobody's trying to "disprove free will". Demon's just don't have it in either D&D or Warhammer

But at least some Warhammer demons DO have it.

The everliving fuck are you on about?

Rambling about parking spaces being free at certain times does nothing to disprove the fact that parking spaces usually have to be paid for.

Whatever the analogy, you can find exceptions to every rule, it doesn't change the fact that the rule exists.

Bullshit, parasites are not inherently evil, they simply *are*. It's just a different mode of existing.

I'm fully aware of that, I said that as parasites, you could call them "evil," as their biology dictates that they have to act in a certain way.

Technically speaking, there's nothing inherent about the Goa'uld organism that's parasitic to begin with, it's called a symbiote for a reason, it's the Goa'uld culture and empire that's parasitic and evil.

Really? Because while it's true that the goa'uld does bring some advantages to its host (cures Jacob's cancer for instance), have the goa'uld ever acted as something you might call a symbiote? They enslaved the unas, then went on to enslave humanity. None of this is what you'd call symbiotic. If you're making the argument that the empire is what makes the goa'uld malignant, that didn't stop them from doing malignant things pre-empire.

The Tok'ra are not constantly fighting against their "natural selves" to be abhorrent slavers, no. That's a *wild* mischaracterization of Tok'Ra philosophy and is, in fact, a sticking point in the show

It's been around 14 years since I saw Stargate, but from what I remember, and after checking the wiki...really? Because apparently the Tok'ra are the way they are because of their queen's genetic imprint. And from what I remember, I got the sense that the Tok'ra were often trying to keep themselves in check. There's an instance where one hijacks Jack for instance - yeah, it was to save his girlfriend or something like that, but I got the sense that taking hosts is a goa'uld's natural instinct (and if it isn't, then that doesn't make for a good parasite/symbiote/whatever.

Is Terminator 3 anti-Free Will because it spells out that Judgment Day can't be stopped? Was Terminator 2 pro-Free Will because it ends on the hopeful note that the future could be changed?

And now I'm reminded as to why I detest T3 on both a thematic and conceptual level.

Look, I love me a good philosophical debate but both D&D and Warhammer have cut and dry answers regarding demons and that answer is No.

And in the case of Warhammer, where is that answer?

Daemons of Chaos

"And so when Sigmar's crown is sundered, his hammer shattered, and his divinity revealed as the mockery that it is, the Legions of Chaos will pour forth from their womb far to the north. And wherever they tread, the ground will blacken. And what they touch will wither to dust and blow away. And...

warhammerfantasy.fandom.com

Read through the article and did a word search, I couldn't find anything that's definitive about free will. But from what I've read, even if you discount daemon princes, daemons have shown free will, or at least, sapience. I remember some short story about a Slaanesh daemon talking and playing with her foe, while in another story, some smuck enters the Realm of Chaos itself, talks with a Changer of Ways, and gets the daemon to do his bidding. Clearly, by my reckoning, at least some daemons have free will because they can carry out individual actions, whereas something like a Bloodletter I wouldn't say has free will, because Bloodletters will only ever act one way, and never do anything else but kill.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Rambling about parking spaces being free at certain times does nothing to disprove the fact that parking spaces usually have to be paid for.
Whatever the analogy, you can find exceptions to every rule, it doesn't change the fact that the rule exists.

I dunno how to be any clearer that this: The Rule was that You Have To Pay For Parking on Weekdays. The Exception That Proves The Rule is that Parking Is Free On Weekends. This does not mean that Every Rule Has Exceptions. If The Rule was that Parking is Free on Weekends, and the sign said You Must Pay For Parking on Weekdays, same issue.

The Rule was *never* You Must Always Pay For Parking (except for these times)

I'm fully aware of that, I said that as parasites, you could call them "evil," as their biology dictates that they have to act in a certain way.

Really? Because while it's true that the goa'uld does bring some advantages to its host (cures Jacob's cancer for instance), have the goa'uld ever acted as something you might call a symbiote?

Yes, either admittedly through self interest or they're called the Tok'ra

They enslaved the unas, then went on to enslave humanity. None of this is what you'd call symbiotic. If you're making the argument that the empire is what makes the goa'uld malignant, that didn't stop them from doing malignant things pre-empire.

Are humans malignant for eating cows? Are cordyceps evil? Do you fight daily against your inherent desire to enslave others?

It's been around 14 years since I saw Stargate, but from what I remember, and after checking the wiki...really? Because apparently the Tok'ra are the way they are because of their queen's genetic imprint. And from what I remember, I got the sense that the Tok'ra were often trying to keep themselves in check. There's an instance where one hijacks Jack for instance - yeah, it was to save his girlfriend or something like that, but I got the sense that taking hosts is a goa'uld's natural instinct (and if it isn't, then that doesn't make for a good parasite/symbiote/whatever.

One person doing a crime does not mean it's entire species is inherently criminal. (And it was Jack's personality that lead to it in the first place, as the Tok'ra considered the human to be an expendable asset but Jack's Never Leave Anyone Behind philosophy was judging it *hard*

Read through the article and did a word search, I couldn't find anything that's definitive about free will. But from what I've read, even if you discount daemon princes, daemons have shown free will, or at least, sapience. I remember some short story about a Slaanesh daemon talking and playing with her foe, while in another story, some smuck enters the Realm of Chaos itself, talks with a Changer of Ways, and gets the daemon to do his bidding. Clearly, by my reckoning, at least some daemons have free will because they can carry out individual actions, whereas something like a Bloodletter I wouldn't say has free will, because Bloodletters will only ever act one way, and never do anything else but kill.

They have Will, but it's not any freer than a Bloodletter's

 

[Drathnoxis]

Taken verbatim from an essay Rowling herself wrote and posted on Pottermore in 2015. Became a meme in 2019 when this account shared it.

I remember listening to a streamer talk a long time ago about wizards teleporting poop out of their bowels, I'm shocked to find out that they were talking about actual Harry Potter canon.

I always thought they were a bunch of self-righteous, pontificating fuckpoles.

I used to watch Extra Credits all the time until their MMO addiction episode. I couldn't watch the show after watching James Portnow crying in front of the camera for 20 minutes because his friend played WoW until he fell asleep at the keyboard.

 

[Terminal Blue]

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.

I don't think it's intentional at all and I think, especially when it comes to the books, the vast, vast majority of criticism didn't assume it was either.

The thing is, conspiratorial anti-semitism has been around for well over a century. It's had an enormous impact on culture. It's been with us so long and has been passed down through so many sources, people might not always be conscious of where the ideas they're using come from. I don't think it's a good thing to be ignorant, but I think it's understandable and I think people would have understood it if it had simply been addressed.

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.

Tolkien famously disliked allegories and one to one references, but he openly acknowledged that he modeled the Dwarven language on Semitic languages and that Dwarves had many similarities to Jewish people as he saw them. Tolkien wasn't really anti-Semitic, in many ways he was philio-Semitic albeit in a kind of patronizing way that reflects the time in which he lived. The comparison of dwarves to Jews isn't mean to be insulting, although it's entirely reasonable that someone today might find elements of it to be so.

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.

It definitely started before then, and I'm pretty sure the big turning point was the films. I remember people talking about this stuff a long time before Rowling decided to devote her life to tormenting trans people, but I think it's one of those discourses which has come in and out of circulation several times.

I think it's became relevant again once JK Rowling's TERFdom became more prominent because a lot of people kept defending her and, in particular, kept insisting that the books represented some ideal of tolerance and inclusion which demonstrated Rowling could never have prejudiced beliefs about trans people, so it became relevant to talk about the ideology of Harry Potter. I don't think there's some secret antisemitic agenda there and I don't think many people have ever alleged that, but it's some dodgy coding which doesn't speak well of the author's awareness or cultural sensitivity.

It's like when Rowling announced that she saw Dumbledore as gay. Most people who went after her for that were really focused on the idea of her retrospectively inserting representation without bothering to make it explicit in the text, which is valid, but a point most people missed is that Dumbledore being gay is not flattering. It references a long tradition of depicting gay people (especially older gay people) as sad, lonely and tragic (because you can't have happy or long-term relationships outside the confines of heterosexual marriage). Dumbledore fell in love once with a straight dude who didn't reciprocate his affections and then spent his entire life alone. Imagine being a young gay person and being told that that is what you should expect from life.

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.

Sure, but they're described as bad looking in very particular terms.

Not just here either. Rowling really, really seems to hate fat people. She is clearly one of those people who used to be fat and just projects all her internalized self-loathing outwards, not just in Harry Potter but also in her ostensibly serious writing for adults. Women who are unsympathetic are also consistently masculinized which, you know, not going there.

And yeah, this probably was normal in the books Rowling read growing up. That doesn't make it okay. Imagine telling teenagers who are worried about their appearance that fat people are basically subhuman pigs and its funny when bad things happen to them. Just because you could tell children that in the past doesn't make it good messaging today. When I was a tiny kid I once called a black person by a racial slur because I read it in an old children's book. My parents learned a very important lesson that day.

And it never quite makes up its mind whether it's an escapist or a borderline dystopian world.

And yeah, I feel like that's the central problem.

Because yeah, the content is fucking horrible. You've got literal slave races, oppressed racial underclasses, supremacist propaganda, torture prisons, wizard-Nazis infiltrating the school system, but none of this is ever treated as a problem. Characters either just accept it or are treated as weird and annoying. It isn't written as a dystopia or even as ambiguous. The wizarding world is cool and whimsical and you should want to be part of it so that you can ignore these things like everyone else.

An author who could acknowledge the existence of systemic problems could have real fun with this. Heck, some of the stuff I loved as a kid was incredibly dark, and I think people who believe that kids can't handle moral complexity are frankly just projecting their own lack of imagination. Having characters who live in this dystopian world and respond to it by going "gee, it sure is annoying when people care about things" is bad writing, it makes the story less interesting.

 

[Dreiko]

My sister is trans and works on video games. The way she describes Hogwarts, and moral stands in video games is simple: There is no morality in video games. None. No one is good, everyone is out for a profit, anyone would make any game. She's currently programing the AI in a WW2 game. Yeah, she's making cyber Nazis that kill Americans. Talk about a moral quandary.
Enjoy the game or don't, buy it or don't. Jim is right that people who buy the game aren't trans allies. But no one who refuses to buy the game is an ally either. There are no allies in a profit driven industry like the gaming industry.

Or it's just art.

If you are making art that is against the nazis, you need some good nazi-actors to portray the nazis in a way that makes the message against them compelling in the narrative of your story too, and you shouldn't just rely on the audience being inherently averse to nazis. So yeah, you can easily have a morally good reason to behave or depict (or code) nazis that perform every single horror imaginable.


I think people forget the purpose of games or movies or art in general. The profit is the thing that makes them sustainable but the purpose why they manage to generate profit to begin with is that they enrich our lives. If we give up this enrichment, that and only that is what is immoral. That is how the nazis truly win, because they robbed us of something that we can no longer seem to retrieve.


When you are writing a villain, the point is to make them despicable, so that the glory of overcoming them is that much more pronounced. It is bizarre to me that anyone would feel moral qualms about writing evil characters, as though they somehow are advocating for the evil they commit, instead of depicting it in a negative context, and giving us an example of overcoming it as a way of uplifting and bolstering our resolve. If you take that logic to is maximum possible conclusion then we would just be unable to have antagonists without guilt or culpability on the part of the creators. It's really quite silly.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

When you are writing a villain, the point is to make them despicable, so that the glory of overcoming them is that much more pronounced. It is bizarre to me that anyone would feel moral qualms about writing evil characters, as though they somehow are advocating for the evil they commit, instead of depicting it in a negative context, and giving us an example of overcoming it as a way of uplifting and bolstering our resolve.

I'm reminded of the time Movie Bob called Arkham City sexist because the thugs Catwoman fights yell sexist insults at her.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Or it's just art.

If you are making art that is against the nazis, you need some good nazi-actors to portray the nazis in a way that makes the message against them compelling in the narrative of your story too, and you shouldn't just rely on the audience being inherently averse to nazis. So yeah, you can easily have a morally good reason to behave or depict (or code) nazis that perform every single horror imaginable.

Yep, them being the bad guys and being Nazis (somehow) isn't enough, you've got to explain to people that them being Nazis is bad. You really shouldn't have to, but you do.

OTOH, you get people thinking the Empire are the real heroes in Star Wars, just to make things difficult for writers.

 

[Dreiko]

Yep, them being the bad guys and being Nazis (somehow) isn't enough, you've got to explain to people that them being Nazis is bad. You really shouldn't have to, but you do.

OTOH, you get people thinking the Empire are the real heroes in Star Wars, just to make things difficult for writers.

I dunno how they figure that about the empire, they're so cartoonishly evil and incompetent at the same time it's easier to see them as comedic relief than as heroes. Especially in the newer movies, it's like they took lessons from team rocket.


And hell, if you're writing a story, having it be self-contained so that an archeologist from the future can watch it and get roughly the same out of it as a contemporary man would is good, even if it's based on real things. Even as a sort of nod, touching upon an explanation that them being nazis is bad is useful. Even if everyone understands it, a visceral reminder is always good. I never like the stories where you have like, the devil or something, and he's just some suave dude in a 3 piece suit being all dark and ominous. I wanna see him do some actual devil shit too.

 

[immortalfrieza]

We all knew this was coming...

​

Yep. Almost 27 minutes whining about JK Rowling and barely anything about the game, how it plays, how good it is... I feel physically sick just watching it really. Sterling left the Escapist and turned into yet another random Youtuber whining about this and that for attention and views rather than because he actually had a legit point to make because that's how he makes his living.

 

[Terminal Blue]

If you are making art that is against the nazis, you need some good nazi-actors to portray the nazis in a way that makes the message against them compelling in the narrative of your story too, and you shouldn't just rely on the audience being inherently averse to nazis. So yeah, you can easily have a morally good reason to behave or depict (or code) nazis that perform every single horror imaginable.

It's true that you shouldn't rely on the audience being inherently averse to Nazis, but I would go a step further and say that you shouldn't rely on the idea that showing horror is the same thing as condemning it. You still have to frame it in a way that makes your intent clear.

Horror is a function of empathy. It's not just about bad things happening to people, it's about bad things happening to people we care about. If you show your villains committing horrible acts but do nothing to make me care about the victims of those acts, then are they actually the villains?

Yep. Almost 27 minutes whining about JK Rowling and barely anything about the game, how it plays, how good it is...

Who cares about any of that?

You think any trans or GNC person with any self-respect is touching this shit? I don't care if playing it broadcasts a signal into your brain that makes you orgasm continuously for hours. I don't care if it's the greatest work of art ever produced by any human culture in history. Not only will I not play it, but if you do then you are slightly less of a human being to me. Nothing else about it matters, or will ever matter, and if you can't see why real people matter more than some dumb wizard game, I don't see why your opinion should matter either.

Also, they.

 

[bluegate]

Sterling left the Escapist and turned into yet another random Youtuber whining about this and that for attention and views rather than because he actually had a legit point to make because that's how he makes his living.

I fail to see the difference between before and after.

And I'm not trying to knock Sterling's content with this comment.

 

[Thaluikhain]

I fail to see the difference between before and after.

And I'm not trying to knock Sterling's content with this comment.

IIRC, from the few videos they made that I saw, they sometimes had some decent things to say, but they buried it in a long video full of waffle and "trendy" youtuber personality stuff. Though, that might have been a requirement, either directly or not.

 

[Baffle]

I would magic my shit into other people's pants for wizardly hijinks. Tee-hee, someone has the madras last night. Eewww!

 

[Gordon_4]

I would magic my shit into other people's pants for wizardly hijinks. Tee-hee, someone has the madras last night. Eewww!

Sadly, Hogwarts does not have a house who's overriding trait is 'Cheeky Bastard'. You would have been glorious.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

I would magic my shit into other people's pants for wizardly hijinks. Tee-hee, someone has the madras last night. Eewww!

I'd magic my shit onto politicians' heads. THE PERFECT CRIME!

 

[Gordon_4]

I'd magic my shit onto politicians' heads. THE PERFECT CRIME!

And entirely victimless.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

And entirely victimless.

Until I get sued by my own shit.

 

[Gordon_4]

Until I get sued by my own shit.

Just assure it that its sacrifice will be remembered in the coming empire