Hogwarts Legacy - Whimsical Wizardry

TheMysteriousGX

Elite Member
Legacy
Sep 16, 2014
8,476
7,049
118
Country
United States
Wait, yes it did. The Basilisk was hunting 'half-bloods', so killing it prevented their murder, and prevented Hogwarts becoming pureblood-only.

The books are quite clear that the 'pureblood supremacist' ideology is pervasive, dangerous, and worth fighting.
Physically, and only when it shows up with a gun to kill people. Like, I'm not trying to bag on Chamber of Secrets *too* hard, it's clearly in "this is a children's book for babies" territory, but when the books mature the politics have to mature too and they just...don't. Which is a problem when the Wizarding World is morphing into trying to be a Serious Story for Adults that Says Things. I watched the Fantastic Beasts movies for a bad movie night because I'm a cinematic masochist and it's Serious Politics as told by somebody who's mainly suited for Children's Books for Babies. At the end of the first one, the best one *by far*, the main female lead was glad she got her magic FBI job back. That job tried to execute her on a moments notice without a trial with no evidence because a boss said so, and she's glad to go back. Their muggle friend got a batch of silver and got to leave his soul sucking, humanity destroying canning job that he hates to open his bakery! And his coworkers had to stick with their soul sucking, humanity destroying canning jobs that they hate. No systemic change is allowed in the Harry Potter universe, just incremental change off screen maybe.

It's like the entire series is a prequel for a later story that doesn't exist.
 
Last edited:

Chimpzy

Simian Abomination
Legacy
Escapist +
Apr 3, 2020
12,834
9,268
118
Might be the denuvo. They keep using that crap for some reason
They keep using Denuvo because it kind of works, in the sense that breaking it is such a painstaking endeavour that it has successfully dissuaded pretty much all of the scene from trying. Many games using it have remained uncracked, for some that were cracked it took months to over a year. Largely because there's only one person willing to do it anymore, for $500, she picks projects on a whim, and she's honestly kind of crazy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrawlMan

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
12,062
6,364
118
Country
United Kingdom
Physically, and only when it shows up with a gun to kill people. Like, I'm not trying to bag on Chamber of Secrets *too* hard, it's clearly in "this is a children's book for babies" territory, but when the books mature the politics have to mature too and they just...don't. Which is a problem when the Wizarding World is morphing into trying to be a Serious Story for Adults that Says Things. I watched the Fantastic Beasts movies for a bad movie night because I'm a cinematic masochist and it's Serious Politics as told by somebody who's mainly suited for Children's Books for Babies. At the end of the first one, the best one *by far*, the main female lead was glad she got her magic FBI job back. That job tried to execute her on a moments notice without a trial with no evidence because a boss said so, and she's glad to go back. Their muggle friend got a batch of silver and got to leave his soul sucking, humanity destroying canning job that he hates to open his bakery! And his coworkers had to stick with their soul sucking, humanity destroying canning jobs that they hate. No systemic change is allowed in the Harry Potter universe, just incremental change off screen maybe.

It's like the entire series is a prequel for a later story that doesn't exist.
I get that, the systemic stuff isn't solved, but that's par for the course in most fantasy stories and isn't a particularly bad thing. I don't think there's anything wrong with writing stories in flawed settings that don't aim to right all the societal wrongs of that world.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hawki

Hawki

Elite Member
Legacy
Mar 4, 2014
9,651
2,175
118
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Slytherin’s reputation might have been helped if it didn’t have a colossal asshole with as many chips as his shoulders would support as head of house and if there has been any scenes where it’s Prefects or Head Boy/Girl pulled Draco and his cronies up on their shit. Even once to demonstrate that someone else thought Draco was a little snot. But either due to a lack of foresight or more likely the overall story never called for it, Slytherin house members are either in lock, or indeed goose, step with the Death Eaters or seemingly oblivious to the super obvious clown shoe wearing proto-fascists they share space with for like eight months a year, for up to seven years.
I've already said that Slytherin gets the lion's share of antagonists in the books, that's not in dispute. But as to the points:

-Everyone knows Draco is a shit (I don't recall prefects pulling him up, but McGonagall does), and as time goes on, you see he's a shit that's been thrust into circumstances that are crushing him.

-If Slytherin was meant to be "the evil house," then you'd have to explain why the series keeps adding Slytherin protagonists (Slughorn, Albus, Scorpius), or adding shades of grey to characters like Snape.

There were no Slytherin protagonists
So Albus and Scorpius don't exist then?

and you can be an antagonist without being a nazi, sorted. Like, you get that the founder of the house, who's house is guided by his principles, was a huge eugenics racist who hid a eugenics murder snake on campus with the intent of doing a genocide, right?
Yes, thank you, genius.

Do they bust up Slytherin and try to integrate it's students with normal people to get them to touch grass? Do they bring in therapists or anything to try and deradicalize the students? Or is it business as usual until the dark wizards show up to do a school shooting and the Slytherins either flee or join in?
Wow, we get to add school shooting to your list of buzzwords.

To answer those questions:

1: Almost certainly yes, there's no ambiguity as to who the Inquisitors were, so with Voldemort defeated, they can be dealt with.

2: I hardly doubt the whole house, but almost certainly yes, considering that Slytherin still exists by the epilogue of Deathly Hallows and Cursed Child, the latter of which has Slytherin protagonists whose bullying comes from outside the house.

3: Use of questionable terminology aside, the whole business as usual thing...you do realize that a key plot point is Fudge trying to carry on with business as usual, despite Dumbledore's warnings? You realize that the duration of Book 5 involves Harry being frustrated with the Ministry's "business as usual." That the Ministry's crackdown by book 6 goes so far in the other direction that even Harry is like "hold on a minute."

I'm starting to wonder if you've even read the books. Because not only have you falsely stated that there's no Slytherin protagonists (how you could have read/watched Cursed Child and missed that I've no idea), you've either missed or ignored key plot points.

Physically, and only when it shows up with a gun to kill people. Like, I'm not trying to bag on Chamber of Secrets *too* hard, it's clearly in "this is a children's book for babies" territory, but when the books mature the politics have to mature too and they just...don't. Which is a problem when the Wizarding World is morphing into trying to be a Serious Story for Adults that Says Things.
I'd argue more specifically that HP starts as JF, then transitions to YF. The politics certainly do shift along with the age range.

I watched the Fantastic Beasts movies for a bad movie night because I'm a cinematic masochist and it's Serious Politics as told by somebody who's mainly suited for Children's Books for Babies. At the end of the first one, the best one *by far*, the main female lead was glad she got her magic FBI job back. That job tried to execute her on a moments notice without a trial with no evidence because a boss said so, and she's glad to go back.
You mean Grindlewald? The person who killed and impersonated her boss? The person who's the antagonist, who'd want to eliminate someone who's running an investigation that could uncover him?

I'm not sure what your point is.

Their muggle friend got a batch of silver and got to leave his soul sucking, humanity destroying canning job that he hates to open his bakery! And his coworkers had to stick with their soul sucking, humanity destroying canning jobs that they hate. No systemic change is allowed in the Harry Potter universe, just incremental change off screen maybe.
Yes, and?

I shouldn't have to state the obvious, but here it is:

-From a Doylist standpoint, that can't happen, because we know as historical fact that wizards didn't suddenly reveal themselves to the world in the 1920s, this being a series that operates on the principle that this is our world, but with magic in it that's kept hidden.

-From a Watsonian standpoint, wizards have no reason to assist Muggles, considering that they've spent centuries in hiding at this point, have every reason to fear Muggles, and don't have anything to gain. It's one thing for Newt to help one person, it's another thing for him to embark on a quest to end all mechanized labour at the risk of revealing his people's world to a society that's been repeatedly violent to them in the past.

-From a third standpoint, I don't get what your hangup is. So magic people don't use their magic to "change the system." That's true of numerous settings. Artemis Fowl has a similar conceit for instance, yet for whatever reason, HP is held to a different standard.

This isn't even a magic thing, this is like me criticizing Game of Thrones for not having Westeros be a full-fledged democracy at the end. From a birdseye view, yes, of course hereditary monarch isn't a stable system, yes of course the "only a man can rule Westeros" is a silly rule that in part led to civil war (see House of the Dragon), but characters in a story don't operate from a birdseye view. It isn't some great insight to apply 21st century morality to fictional settings. It makes even less sense when that's done for historical settings. If I'm watching a show/reading a book set centuries/millennia before our own time, it's silly to criticize it for its characters not having a 21st century perspective.

A story's under no obligation to solve every societal ill, and if it did, then you're potentially shooting yourself in the foot. If your world doesn't have conflict or hardship in it, your world's become a lot less interesting (unless you're Brave New World or something similar, in which case, the lack of these things is the point, for better or worse).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dwarvenhobble

TheMysteriousGX

Elite Member
Legacy
Sep 16, 2014
8,476
7,049
118
Country
United States
So Albus and Scorpius don't exist then?
Not until Cursed Child, which sucks.
1: Almost certainly yes, there's no ambiguity as to who the Inquisitors were, so with Voldemort defeated, they can be dealt with.
I've got no reason to expect that went better than the first time around.
2: I hardly doubt the whole house, but almost certainly yes, considering that Slytherin still exists by the epilogue of Deathly Hallows and Cursed Child, the latter of which has Slytherin protagonists whose bullying comes from outside the house.
You give a fantastic amount of leeway for bad writing.
3: Use of questionable terminology aside, the whole business as usual thing...you do realize that a key plot point is Fudge trying to carry on with business as usual, despite Dumbledore's warnings? You realize that the duration of Book 5 involves Harry being frustrated with the Ministry's "business as usual." That the Ministry's crackdown by book 6 goes so far in the other direction that even Harry is like "hold on a minute."
And then despite two years of hilarious systemic governmental fuckups, the solution isn't that maybe the system is bad, it's just got the wrong people in charge.
You mean Grindlewald? The person who killed and impersonated her boss? The person who's the antagonist, who'd want to eliminate someone who's running an investigation that could uncover him?

I'm not sure what your point is.
That a random boss, whom nobody is aware of being replaced, can order two same day executions of random people over minor charges without a trial and everybody in the building is basically okay with it. Like, I dunno man, would make interactions around the coffee maker kind of tense knowing that Steve from accounting was cool with management executing me on a whim. Just how cheap is life in the Wizarding World? Like, "the rest of the precinct was cool with executing me with a smile on their face because the captain said so but he got revealed to be corrupt" is the origin story of a private detective, they aren't usually glad to get that cop job back

I shouldn't have to state the obvious, but here it is:

-From a Doylist standpoint, that can't happen, because we know as historical fact that wizards didn't suddenly reveal themselves to the world in the 1920s, this being a series that operates on the principle that this is our world, but with magic in it that's kept hidden.

-From a Watsonian standpoint, wizards have no reason to assist Muggles, considering that they've spent centuries in hiding at this point, have every reason to fear Muggles, and don't have anything to gain. It's one thing for Newt to help one person, it's another thing for him to embark on a quest to end all mechanized labour at the risk of revealing his people's world to a society that's been repeatedly violent to them in the past.
Would've been easy to portray the canning job as a decent job that Jacob personally hates instead of a soul sucking, terrible job for everybody. But this is the series where the wizards know the Holocaust is about to happen and don't do shit about it too, so this isn't surprising.
This isn't even a magic thing, this is like me criticizing Game of Thrones for not having Westeros be a full-fledged democracy at the end. From a birdseye view, yes, of course hereditary monarch isn't a stable system, yes of course the "only a man can rule Westeros" is a silly rule that in part led to civil war (see House of the Dragon), but characters in a story don't operate from a birdseye view. It isn't some great insight to apply 21st century morality to fictional settings. It makes even less sense when that's done for historical settings. If I'm watching a show/reading a book set centuries/millennia before our own time, it's silly to criticize it for its characters not having a 21st century perspective.
Game of Thrones is not over yet. Can we apply 21st century morality to media set in the fucking 21st century?
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrawlMan

Dreiko

Elite Member
Legacy
May 1, 2020
2,916
992
118
CT
Country
usa
Gender
male, pronouns: your majesty/my lord/daddy
Physically, and only when it shows up with a gun to kill people. Like, I'm not trying to bag on Chamber of Secrets *too* hard, it's clearly in "this is a children's book for babies" territory, but when the books mature the politics have to mature too and they just...don't. Which is a problem when the Wizarding World is morphing into trying to be a Serious Story for Adults that Says Things. I watched the Fantastic Beasts movies for a bad movie night because I'm a cinematic masochist and it's Serious Politics as told by somebody who's mainly suited for Children's Books for Babies. At the end of the first one, the best one *by far*, the main female lead was glad she got her magic FBI job back. That job tried to execute her on a moments notice without a trial with no evidence because a boss said so, and she's glad to go back. Their muggle friend got a batch of silver and got to leave his soul sucking, humanity destroying canning job that he hates to open his bakery! And his coworkers had to stick with their soul sucking, humanity destroying canning jobs that they hate. No systemic change is allowed in the Harry Potter universe, just incremental change off screen maybe.

It's like the entire series is a prequel for a later story that doesn't exist.
Most people wanna visit fantasy realms because they like them, not because they need to be fixed to become more appropriate for someone with real world sensibilities. So a story about correcting the ills of a fantasy world is quite different to a story about wonder and awe as you adventure in an awesome magical world. Not every story needs to be about correcting systemic ills, it is fine to have stories about enjoying a fantastical world that is also flawed in some ways. I think if the idea is that this is a world every kid would wanna dream of going to, you don't wanna question its systems too much. The world is fundamentally good and once you deal with the few bad guys who are causing trouble it can go back being awesome.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hawki

TheMysteriousGX

Elite Member
Legacy
Sep 16, 2014
8,476
7,049
118
Country
United States
I get that, the systemic stuff isn't solved, but that's par for the course in most fantasy stories and isn't a particularly bad thing. I don't think there's anything wrong with writing stories in flawed settings that don't aim to right all the societal wrongs of that world.
The settings flaws are specifically called out as the direct and ongoing cause of the current problems, it isn't just a flawed world that the story happens to take place in. It'd be like a police corruption story that pretends All Is Well at the end without actually tackling police corruption.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrawlMan

TheMysteriousGX

Elite Member
Legacy
Sep 16, 2014
8,476
7,049
118
Country
United States
Most people wanna visit fantasy realms because they like them, not because they need to be fixed to become more appropriate for someone with real world sensibilities. So a story about correcting the ills of a fantasy world is quite different to a story about wonder and awe as you adventure in an awesome magical world. Not every story needs to be about correcting systemic ills, it is fine to have stories about enjoying a fantastical world that is also flawed in some ways. I think if the idea is that this is a world every kid would wanna dream of going to, you don't wanna question its systems too much. The world is fundamentally good and once you deal with the few bad guys who are causing trouble it can go back being awesome.
...The world is fundamentally unequal, racist, and filled with eugenics. This is called out by the Wise Mentor Figure as the source of all of their woes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrawlMan

CriticalGaming

Elite Member
Legacy
Dec 28, 2017
11,216
5,678
118
Can we apply 21st century morality to media set in the fucking 21st century?
Can you apply that same morality to a fictional world at all? That's what people have been trying to so the past 3-4 years (maybe because Covid made them REALLY fucking bored who knows).

I mean saying Orc's in DnD are a fantasy representation of black people? Or saying Goblin's are Jewish and anti goblin propaganda in the fantasy is the same as nazism.

Violence, greed, dishonestly, these are just traits and blanketing them only a fantasy race does not correlate to racism in the real world. It's negative traits that have to be applied in the fantasy environment so that there is potential for conflict with the fantasy.

It's very easy to imply racism or antisemitism to anything you want in a fictional environment but that doesn't mean there is a hidden message of author intent. This is especially true in private world building rule systems like the DnD example, in which DM's are free to use the lore and ruleset however they want as it's merely a guideline to the fantasy not true facts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dwarvenhobble

Dreiko

Elite Member
Legacy
May 1, 2020
2,916
992
118
CT
Country
usa
Gender
male, pronouns: your majesty/my lord/daddy
...The world is fundamentally unequal, racist, and filled with eugenics. This is called out by the Wise Mentor Figure as the source of all of their woes.
Right that's the part of the world that is like real life, but then you add magic, making it a world that is amazing and worth going to, because now you have magic.


Can you apply that same morality to a fictional world at all? That's what people have been trying to so the past 3-4 years (maybe because Covid made them REALLY fucking bored who knows).

I mean saying Orc's in DnD are a fantasy representation of black people? Or saying Goblin's are Jewish and anti goblin propaganda in the fantasy is the same as nazism.

Violence, greed, dishonestly, these are just traits and blanketing them only a fantasy race does not correlate to racism in the real world. It's negative traits that have to be applied in the fantasy environment so that there is potential for conflict with the fantasy.

It's very easy to imply racism or antisemitism to anything you want in a fictional environment but that doesn't mean there is a hidden message of author intent. This is especially true in private world building rule systems like the DnD example, in which DM's are free to use the lore and ruleset however they want as it's merely a guideline to the fantasy not true facts.
Goblins are jewish now? I coulda sworn people were saying they were mexicans or arabs or something back during the goblin slayer controversy.


And I play an Orc in basically every thing that lets me, I never knew they were supposed to be black. How did they decide this?
 

Dwarvenhobble

Is on the Gin
May 26, 2020
6,014
665
118
There were no Slytherin protagonists and you can be an antagonist without being a nazi, sorted. Like, you get that the founder of the house, who's house is guided by his principles, was a huge eugenics racist who hid a eugenics murder snake on campus with the intent of doing a genocide, right? Do they bust up Slytherin and try to integrate it's students with normal people to get them to touch grass? Do they bring in therapists or anything to try and deradicalize the students? Or is it business as usual until the dark wizards show up to do a school shooting and the Slytherins either flee or join in?
1) Witch burning etc are cannon.
2) The other founders were happy enough to work with the dude to a greater or lesser extent and suspecting some level of extremism taking hold Gryffindor hid the sword in the castle for use if and when needed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hawki

TheMysteriousGX

Elite Member
Legacy
Sep 16, 2014
8,476
7,049
118
Country
United States
Can you apply that same morality to a fictional world at all?
...yes? Obviously? Like, Dudley got a PlayStation for Christmas, this world is not particularly unlike our own, especially for us poor muggle bastards.
Or saying Goblin's are Jewish and anti goblin propaganda in the fantasy is the same as nazism.
Goblins aren't inherently Jewish, no. JK Rowling's goblins, which make constant references to specific anti-Semitic propaganda and real world events...we're all gonna have our own tipping points for coincidence, sure, but they're starting to get *really* specific
Right that's the part of the world that is like real life, but then you add magic, making it a world that is amazing and worth going to, because now you have magic.
I suddenly have an inkling as to why trash isekai is so popular.
Goblins are jewish now? I coulda sworn people were saying they were mexicans or arabs or something back during the goblin slayer controversy.
Nobody's talking about all depictions of goblins everywhere all of the time
And I play an Orc in basically every thing that lets me, I never knew they were supposed to be black. How did they decide this?
Nobody's talking about all depictions of orcs everywhere all of the time
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrawlMan

Dreiko

Elite Member
Legacy
May 1, 2020
2,916
992
118
CT
Country
usa
Gender
male, pronouns: your majesty/my lord/daddy
...yes? Obviously? Like, Dudley got a PlayStation for Christmas, this world is not particularly unlike our own, especially for us poor muggle bastards.
Goblins aren't inherently Jewish, no. JK Rowling's goblins, which make constant references to specific anti-Semitic propaganda and real world events...we're all gonna have our own tipping points for coincidence, sure, but they're starting to get *really* specific
I suddenly have an inkling as to why trash isekai is so popular.
Nobody's talking about all depictions of goblins everywhere all of the time

Nobody's talking about all depictions of orcs everywhere all of the time
So which orcs are the black ones? The ones from skyrim? And I don't think I can remember any sort of thing that has religious goblins that follow jewish-ish traditions.


Honestly, I'd get arguing elves are black, if you're talking about elves in dragon age who used to be slaves, but orcs?
 

Hawki

Elite Member
Legacy
Mar 4, 2014
9,651
2,175
118
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Not until Cursed Child, which sucks.
Not a refutation of the point. Also, again, Slughorn, Lestrange, Merlin, etc.

I've got no reason to expect that went better than the first time around.
So the fact that by Cursed Child there's hardly any Death Eaters left and no signs of blood supremacy in Slytherin doesn't give you a hint?

You give a fantastic amount of leeway for bad writing.
Like you have a dearth of critical reasoning skills?

And then despite two years of hilarious systemic governmental fuckups, the solution isn't that maybe the system is bad, it's just got the wrong people in charge.
First, that's generally how governments work - system remains the same, better people come in.

Second, I've already cited time and time again as to how and why things improved post-Hallows, all you keep saying is "nuh huh!"

That a random boss, whom nobody is aware of being replaced, can order two same day executions of random people over minor charges without a trial and everybody in the building is basically okay with it. Like, I dunno man, would make interactions around the coffee maker kind of tense knowing that Steve from accounting was cool with management executing me on a whim. Just how cheap is life in the Wizarding World?
How many people knew what Grindlewald was doing?

This is nitpicking at this point.

Would've been easy to portray the canning job as a decent job that Jacob personally hates instead of a soul sucking, terrible job for everybody.
I can't believe I have to explain basic storytelling to you, but okay:

1: The canning job sucks.

2: Jacob leaves the canning job and gets his dream job.

3: Because the canning job sucks, that the bakery job is much better leads to more fulfillment for the audience and for the character. If you're telling a rags to riches story, you don't start out with the character having a cushy job and then getting the dream job. I mean, you can, but you're limiting the amount of emotional impact.

But this is the series where the wizards know the Holocaust is about to happen and don't do shit about it too, so this isn't surprising.
Jesus. Fucking. Christ.

I'm sorry, you cannot be this stupid. Fine. Let's go over this.

1: How many wizards knew the Holocaust was going to happen? A small bunch in one city from one man who many aren't going to see as an objective source of information, especially considering he's at odds with every wizarding government.

2: Even if wizards knew the Holocaust was going to happen, they should care...why, exactly? From a birdseye view I can give you an answer, from an in-universe view, considering that wizards have good reason to fear Muggles given the history between them, they should risk themselves for Muggles based on...what? Yes, individual wizards sure, but if the Muggles are off killing each other, the wizards have little reason to care.

3: Considering that the wizard world was already fighting its own, parallel war during WWII (you think it's coincidence that Grindlewald was defeated in 1945?), you're asking the wizarding world to effectively fight two wars simultaniously.

Game of Thrones is not over yet.
The TV show, you nitwit.

Can we apply 21st century morality to media set in the fucking 21st century?
...

...

Game of Thrones is not set in the 21st century. It's not even set on our planet. You...you understand this, right?

Jesus Christ, I'm nearly fucking done. I don't know if you're pretending to be dense or you're really just this stupid, but either way, the result is the same.

Can you apply that same morality to a fictional world at all?
You can, but it's usually silly.

For instance, House of the Dragon. Do women have an unfair lot in life? Yes. It isn't some great insight to say "gee, that kinda sucks." No shit Sherlock, that's the point.
 

Hawki

Elite Member
Legacy
Mar 4, 2014
9,651
2,175
118
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
So which orcs are the black ones? The ones from skyrim? And I don't think I can remember any sort of thing that has religious goblins that follow jewish-ish traditions.
The orcs are whatever GX thinks they are. Then when people point out stuff that contradicts his view, he can just go "nuh uh!"
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
12,062
6,364
118
Country
United Kingdom
The settings flaws are specifically called out as the direct and ongoing cause of the current problems, it isn't just a flawed world that the story happens to take place in. It'd be like a police corruption story that pretends All Is Well at the end without actually tackling police corruption.
I still don't think it becomes a necessity to address them in the central storyline. These things can be evoked as background and surrounding context without needing to be solved.

Look at the Witcher, as an example. The violent anti-nonhuman discrimination is a major piece of context, and affects the political plotlines that affect Geralt and Ciri and Yennefer-- massively so from Thanedd onwards. But in the story he's telling, these things don't get solved. That's not a weakness of the story that is getting told. It would almost be a bit reductionist to expect it to be resolved.
 

Dwarvenhobble

Is on the Gin
May 26, 2020
6,014
665
118
Physically, and only when it shows up with a gun to kill people. Like, I'm not trying to bag on Chamber of Secrets *too* hard, it's clearly in "this is a children's book for babies" territory, but when the books mature the politics have to mature too and they just...don't. Which is a problem when the Wizarding World is morphing into trying to be a Serious Story for Adults that Says Things. I watched the Fantastic Beasts movies for a bad movie night because I'm a cinematic masochist and it's Serious Politics as told by somebody who's mainly suited for Children's Books for Babies. At the end of the first one, the best one *by far*, the main female lead was glad she got her magic FBI job back. That job tried to execute her on a moments notice without a trial with no evidence because a boss said so, and she's glad to go back. Their muggle friend got a batch of silver and got to leave his soul sucking, humanity destroying canning job that he hates to open his bakery! And his coworkers had to stick with their soul sucking, humanity destroying canning jobs that they hate. No systemic change is allowed in the Harry Potter universe, just incremental change off screen maybe.

It's like the entire series is a prequel for a later story that doesn't exist.
Thing is no-one knew for sure the chamber existed or where it was located. It's one of those things that's a rumour like many schools have in the UK like the school I went too where I heard some lower years on about the haunted maths classroom where some teacher went nuts and killed a student. It was a toilet, I knew it was a toilet because when I started it used to be open and usable but kept getting vandalised so they shut it permanently. My year had the "Haunted drama studio where a kid fell to their death" so they sealed it off and you could only hear the crying of the Kid's ghost." It was the teacher smoking lounge and the moaning, whining, crying noise was the extractor fan in there that needed repairing.