The PPC Posting Board - Latest posts

...This IS magic we're talking about here. It's completely reasonable to assume energy isn't taken from the origin of the wand's material because magic breaks known physics. For example, Polyjuice potions create matter out of nothing. It is therefore not a terrible mental stretch to say they do the same with energy.

But we have seen scenes like a competent witch and a competent wizard (McGonagall and Dumbledore) carrying petrified Colin Creevy, so it may be reasonable to assume that sharing the weight is less exhausting than one person levitating him. With an infinite well of magical energy, life would be too easy, and we should have seen much more magic than we actually did.

HG

I mean, it could go any way - maybe wand material loses power when you transfer it, maybe it retains exactly equal power, or maybe the witch-wood-beast synergy gives more power than the three individually.

Actually, question: is there any indication in canon that it's possible to run out of magic, or not have enough to cast a spell? My memory is that failure to cast powerful spells (Patronus and the Unforgivables spring to mind) comes from an inability to do it right/concentrate hard enough; I don't remember ever seeing 'I've cast too many spells, now I can't do any more!'.

So... is HP magic a literally infinite well, which any magic-user can tap as much as they want from? Is there even an answer to that question?

hS

It seems that the community's decision is to make Tomash (five votes), Ix (four votes) and Cat-on-the-Keyboard (three votes) mods of the channel. Tomorrow I will make it so and remove mod permission from Delta Juliette and PC. If anybody has any sort of objection, voice it now or forever hold your peace.

The next article is the mods' powers, to wit: should they be able to ban people from the channel, or should that only be something the Owner does after a person was banned from the PPC in general?

Also, since nobody said anything, I am going to prune the members of the channel every week — in other words, every Saturday I'll kick any member that did not log-in for 30 days or more. The channel can be rejoined by asking the owner or the mods for an invite, in any case.

Across five continents, witches and wizards knew that magic cast by their own innate skill and power was the purest and most ethical mode of magic. Only in Europe did they reach beyond that level, plundering the natural world to fuel destructive and manipulative spells that made them supreme across the world - but at what cost?

No, there is no evidence of any link between a wand's core and the creature it came from, but even without that, what price must the beast pay? If we sever your finger to give advantage to another, you will feel the loss even though you can no longer sense the missing digit. What does it feel like, to have your magical ability and strength drained away, in feathers or hairs or horn? And what of the trees, who cannot even flee, but must submit to being harvested of their natural talents?



-W.A.N.E.

(I follow the Hermione Granger school of activism. Badges for teh win! ~hS)

You've made a mistake. Mistakes happen; no need to beat yourself up over it.

Is that wands do not hold an active connection to the core's source: Harry's and Voldemort's wands do take their power from Fawkes, Fleur doesn't take magic from her grandmother, etc.

While wiki-diving, I've come across a bit that says about "residual power stored in a wand", so that's how I think of it: core substances have some residual power of the creature that came from and that's the wand's fuel - not enough for the (still alive) creature to feel the difference, but enough for a human to do some pretty awesome magic.

Now, having a core substance with the amount of power, the wood with the power (Giggity), and the wizard's innate power - and they do have some, since wandless magic exists in general - I'd say that's quite an amount of magical power, enough for a human wizard's life.

I'd assume other wandmakers would do the same for an XXXX creature. Can't say anything about dragon heartstrings, however. I hope it's harvested after it's deceased. I've always wondered about that.

I am very late to this party, but Real Life is kind of mean.

I actually would have nominated myself, but then my computer's bottom started falling off. I can't access Discord until I get it back from my parents.

That and it feels like the height of arrogance to think of oneself as being a good fit for a leadership position...

Here in Israel the equivalent of "piss" (which is slang) is commonly used and the "clean" word is only ever used in formal writing (like a doctor's diagnosis); people who want to avoid slang avoid mentioning it altogether (and say something that roughly means "small needs").

For thousands of years, our European colleagues in the wizarding community have harped on one constant message: magic wands are better. They allow more advanced magic, more easily, with more control. They let witches and wizards who would otherwise be limited to a few minor curses craft elaborate charms and spells. "The wand did for magic what fire did for cooking," as one famous history put it.

All of this is true.

Strangely absent from the discourse coming out of Europe, though, is the terrible cost of wands. Not monetary cost - the cost to the living things whose powers we are stealing to fuel our own.

Does the phoenix feel the energy leave it each time one of its feathers is encased in wood? Does the rare magically-attuned oak or ash realise how it is exploited, when its branches are harvested to fuel human wizardry? How many magical creatures have had their lives lessened, shortened, by the leeching of their power to serve our ends?

It is not the time to turn away from the use of wands; every witch and wizard on the planet sees them as indispensable to 'proper' magic. But can we not be more considerate in their use? Can we not see them for what they are - tools for extracting another creature's power and using it to feed our own? If we can, then perhaps we can set foot on the path towards a new, kinder mode of magic.

-This message brought to you by the Wizarding Association of Non-Europeans (W.A.N.E.)

---

Consider the following:

-Wands, using animal and plant material, were invented by Europeans, not by the reportedly animal-and-plant-attuned Native Americans.

-According to Ollivander, "Only a minority of trees can produce wand quality wood (just as a minority of humans can produce magic)." There is a direct parallel between magic-using humans and magic-producing trees.

-Wands are quasi-intelligent, able to choose and bond with their owners. Where does the intelligence come from?

-The only instance we see of a creature deliberately giving material for a wand - the Horned Serpent's gift to Isolt Sayre - comes across as a significant and powerful act of almost mystical significance: "...she went down to the creek to find the Horned Serpent, which rose up out of the water and bowed its head to her while she shaved a long shard from its horn."

-According to at least one report, Newt Scamander's wand does not contain normal animal material. Its core appears to be either bone or shell, both of which are only obtainable after the creature is dead (and thus no longer needs its innate powers). Newt, of course, is the wizard we know of who's most in tune with fantastic beasts (other than Hagrid, whose wand has... an unknown core).

I don't think it's a wild extrapolation to think that wands make use of their sources' magic, and that they lessen it somehow by doing so. From that it follows that their creation and introduction to various places at various times was probably highly controversial.

Note that Isolt's introduction of wand-making to the Americas is deftly done: she built it on a foundation of respect for the magical creatures, which apparently continued long after (remember the mystery of obtaining White River Monster spines?). In contrast, European wizards grab shed unicorn hairs and sell them for profit.

Obviously all this is my own extrapolation (and W.A.N.E. is my own creation), but I think it fits. Thoughts from the gallery? I'm happy to be wrong if I'm wrong. ;)

hS

Sorry if I'm a couple days behind everyone else, just started a job this week. Anyway:

At my college, most of the tabletop RPG players run in the same group. We've had some loony characters and players we had to deal with, but none as Sue-ish as the guy who wanted to play Thor.

He needed to be a deity, or as close to it as you can get as a player character, so he was a Kyrie, which are basically angels. But he didn't know he was an angel, and he didn't have wings. This was because when he was young, his mother was kidnapped, he was cursed, and he forgets anything that has to do with who his mother is, or what his powers are. No word on the father, who presumably fell victim to Protagonist Parent Syndrome. But don't worry, this guy still had a relic to remember his mother by. It was basically Thor's hammer. Big, lightning-y, and with a spell that let it return if he threw it.

The idea itself was vaguely overpowered, poorly thought out, and cliche, but it was serviceable. The real problem was when he actually played this character. If it didn't advance HIS plot, he didn't care. He got into a significant amount of (verbal) fights with the party about how he needed to find his mother, because the GM kept enabling him with plot hooks, even though the entire rest of the party was more concerned with the actual campaign objective. This was a group of upperclassmen after all, so they were basically working on a timer until they graduated.

Eventually, the player ended up moving schools. I can't say he was anything less than a good guy, but I also can't say that I miss his play-style.

This is a Royal Ice Cream Container! Close the lid, state the flavor you want, and then open, and tada! There it will be! Also, this doubles as a virtually invincible shield. Seriously, it'll protect you from a Divine Buster. Unfortunately, it only protects a small portion of you unless you manage to shrink yourself, so choose carefully. Oh, and this version has a slight glitch. Annoying, but I confiscated it from somebody who violated copyright law, so, somewhat expected. Anyways, every other time you open it, you'll find the butt of a gun inside, and if you pull it out, you'll find it's a perfect replica of one of Mami Tomoe's. Have fun!

"Piss" is vulgar, at least here in the US. We say "pee" or "urine" if we must discuss it at all outside our closest circles (and I think it's mostly just men who use "piss" even with close friends).

"Pissed off" isn't very strongly associated with the bodily fluid, but it's still more PG-13 than PG, and not the sort of language we want to see thrown around all the time. Family-friendly versions include "ticked off," "cheesed off," "hacked off," etc. (Don't ask me why.) Best to save "pissed off" for when you really mean it, and even then, it's better to try logic before resorting to strong language to make a point.

Also, just in case anyone doesn't know this: "to be pissed" in the US means to be angry; in the UK, it means to be drunk. Know who's speaking and who you're speaking to lest there be confusion!

~Neshomeh

"Pissed off" might be slang but it's not vulgar. Unless there's some local slang about pissed off bees that is?

This magic shovel digs up...

Do-do-do-do do-dodo-doooo~

... Undertale songs, apparently. Enjoy your copy of Ghost Fight!

I think that referring to Reddit as a single, monolithic site is wrong. Each subreddit is different; you have everything from regressive left echo-chambers to r/the_Donald (haven't seen actual neo-nazis yet) and anything in-between.

From what I've seen, Cat has a very good grasp both of the PPC and of what goes on in the Discord. She'd be a very solid moderator.

Welcome [comma] welcome to the [uppercase] ppc [comma] [uppercase] I do hope you enjoy your stay [full-stop]

My gift to you is: nothing! Because you already have the greatest gift of all: friendship.
I mean, I suppose you could use some grammar and all, but I think everyone else's covered that base, eh?

The only sub I can think of that actually does this is /r/The_Donald behind-the-scenes, but then again, SRS exists for a reason, whether you like it or not. Same thing applies to when reddit posts get put up on cringe subs and /r/rage.

Also, today's members don't speak of the various incidents that match these particular types of people that have gone down. The original posts are like bio-hazards if you know what I mean.

Then again, the only subs I really browse are some defaults, games I like, and cringe subs.