blood wards

[Kaiserin]

Ok, I am writing a rtb fic, I changed the scene to show Wrinkles coming back after everyone is gone, to add the wards by cutting Harry's hand and setting it on the corners of the property.

Now because wrinkles does not know everything he does not realize the potential trouble this may cause (and while wrinkles isn't riddle he is a narcisist). thuse he makes a ward with blood forcibly taken, which causes the ward to want to encourage harrys blood to be spilt. it would agrivate any malicious feelings but not cause them. like adding fuel to sparks.

Does this make sense? should I go back to the drawing board? I would love to have some insight on this.

[kumainpink]

That's an interesting idea... me like~! I could see this really working, too.

[readingwizard4]

This sound good. Hope you get to write it

[Kaiserin]

the problem is that I am trying to make it more cohesive and understandable so that I can have my characters talk about it. what other implications could come out of blood forcibly taken to charge a blood ward?

[Ayrine Sun]

He knows better than try and mess with Lily's love protection and ancient magic.
And why spill Harry blood when it's his connection to his ante that's important? Does he spill Petunia's too? To make sure it's failure-proof, you know. Maybe even use Lily's blood after all she is the initial blood which was spelt by Voldemort. Maybe he waited hidden in GH until Hagrid took Harry and stole Lily's body, dissimulate it to use it afterwards?

Even so, if he spill Harry blood in Petunia's Garden, does that mean that Petunia's flowers have Harry blood in their sap as plants absorb it from the ground. So as long as there is Begonia and Daisies in Privet Drive, Harry is immortal? lol

But then, he also commented negatively on the way Voldemort made spilling blood a way to enter the sea cave. Suggesting that in all his narcissism, he still would use better ways.

So for me no forcefully taken blood. I can't see him doing it.

[kumainpink]

Well, maybe you can't see it, Ayrine, but it is still an interesting idea. And knows better? Somehow, I highly doubt it...

[physicssquid]

I can't see him doing it either, not after he commented that the key to the cave Voldemort hid the locket in was so amateurish or something.

[Kaiserin]

I sorry I did not make it clear. In my story I altered the scene where they leave Harry on the doorstep so that Dumbledore comes back after they leave to setup the wards. to do so, he takes blood from harry to set on the perimiter of the property. he does nto realize he is forcibly taking blood, but he sure as heck does not have consent. I am saying that forcibly taken is an unforseen consequence of how he set the wards. IF this is a given, then how does it play out? what does this mean for the protections?

[Ayrine Sun]

Jul 14, 2012 14:18:07 GMT -5 kumainpink said:

Well, maybe you can't see it, Ayrine, but it is still an interesting idea. And knows better? Somehow, I highly doubt it...

Well, if you say it's interesting, then OK. And Dumbledore was right about most of it, no? Predicted Voldemort's downfall and Harry's surviving after Voldemort stole Harry's blood, no? Knows how powerful it was, put all his faith and was correct, no?

Yes, Physicssquid. He thought that using blood was amateurish and somewhat crude.

[sherza]

Jul 14, 2012 14:46:11 GMT -5 Kaiserin said:

I sorry I did not make it clear. In my story I altered the scene where they leave Harry on the doorstep so that Dumbledore comes back after they leave to setup the wards. to do so, he takes blood from harry to set on the perimiter of the property. he does nto realize he is forcibly taking blood, but he sure as heck does not have consent. I am saying that forcibly taken is an unforseen consequence of how he set the wards. IF this is a given, then how does it play out? what does this mean for the protections?

To get this back on track (as I've run with variants on this theme)

Other possible consequences:

1) The wards enforce the neglect (protect Harry from being seen by those that wish him harm, but it gets twisted)

2) The wards prevent anyone outside the family from noticing that Harry is abused (again, protecting him, because taking him from where he's 'protected' is bad, but it got twisted all to heck)

3) And yes, encourage abusive behavior, though not so much because they already hate him, as because his accidental magic episodes bring him to peoples' attention, and that's bad. But again, it gets twisted, so instead of doing something appropriate to minimize the episodes, they go flying off the deep edge.

[lucyolsen]

I always did think that there was some sort of charm or something that kept harry from being noticed. It might have been for his protection, but totally kept the teachers and school nurses from noticing anything was wrong.

It might only work on muggles, because he certainly got noticed once he got to the wizarding world.

[Kitty279]

He was inded noticed by wizards long before he knew he was one himself. And these wards as they were intended in canon needed to protect him from wizards, not muggles. One of the reasons why I believe the wards never worked properly to begin with.

[Ayrine Sun]

Jul 14, 2012 14:46:11 GMT -5 Kaiserin said:

I sorry I did not make it clear. In my story I altered the scene where they leave Harry on the doorstep so that Dumbledore comes back after they leave to setup the wards. to do so, he takes blood from harry to set on the perimiter of the property. he does nto realize he is forcibly taking blood, but he sure as heck does not have consent. I am saying that forcibly taken is an unforseen consequence of how he set the wards. IF this is a given, then how does it play out? what does this mean for the protections?

Harry can't give it willingly, you know, he is a baby. But even so, "If" the blood is taken without Harry's "Consent" it's still used to protect him and save his life, not used against him, torture him and kill him, which should count as a positive force, no? We have seen in the story that Intentions count for a lot. Love can save lives. Saving an enemy's life can be beneficial as you have him indebted to you. Even the Hallows can't be truly mastered without unselfish goals.


So what's the more important in here? Is it Harry's non consent or Voldemort's malicious goal or Dumbledore good intentions?

If you think that intentions doesn't count, so it will be a negative force, maybe the wards would be failing somewhat. If you think intention are important, then it's a positive force.

[Kitty279]

Ayrine, in canon the wards were *intended* to protect Harry from harm, but they *never* protected him from the abuse by the Dursleys, which *was* harm. That intend either wasn't playing a role, or, as I already said, they never worked to begin with.

[Kaiserin]

the basis of the ward dumbledore laid:

Original was banned by the ministry because to often something went wrong.

intent based
needs consentual blood given (4 drops, one for each corner)
owner of property needs to give permissiondifficult wand movements and long old welsh incantation

Dumbledore while benign in his intent was not pure of heart and focusing on best needs of Harry while casting, did not get consent and altered the spell to allow for not having Petunias permission (thus messing it up).

It works but is twisted.

Oh and Dumbledores intention was to see him alive and unaware of the magical world when he turned eleven.

[Ayrine Sun]

I think the wards work on Voldemort and his men, as he couldn't abduct Harry or make his death-eaters do it the beginning of book 4, because his goal was to kill him.

The wards are not intended to make Harry invincible, so he still got bullied and got scratches when he fall. But they are important to save his life from murderer and prevent serious injuries. Which in canon never happened in Privet Drive.

The Dursleys are cruel brutes, unfair and horrible, but not bloody mass murderers.

Didn't know that wanting to save someone life was a bad intention. Well, it's as you see it fit.

[Kaiserin]

I said his intentions were benign, as in neutral. I see this like a potion you can't just get the general gist you need to know the specifics. and as a baby he would need the permission of his parents or other blood relations or godparent (if done in a magical binding way). Dumbledore does not know Harry well at this point, maybe later at school, but not now. He had a general interest in harrys well being but not a personal one.

[Ayrine Sun]

Jul 14, 2012 15:58:05 GMT -5 Kaiserin said:

I said his intentions were benign, as in neutral. I see this like a potion you can't just get the general gist you need to know the specifics. and as a baby he would need the permission of his parents or other blood relations or godparent (if done in a magical binding way). Dumbledore does not know Harry well at this point, maybe later at school, but not now. He had a general interest in harrys well being but not a personal one.

I am not sure about the relation between the intensity of Dumbledore's feelings for Harry and his intentions. That would mean : if you aren't close to someone, any of your action to help them are impure or suspicious. I believe too that Dumbledore didn't care more about Harry than he cared about any innocent baby. Yes, not more but not less. He wanted Harry to live as he wanted any child.

As for the consent of the parent it's not possible. The godparent it is not too. Then the next relative is Petunia. Here's the question: while it's true that Dumbledore didn't ask directly Petunia to take Harry-and I believe that was his scheme to playing on her maternal feelings and sympathy (yes, the scarps), so when she found him on her step door, it enforced the idea that he was all alone in this world and probably that's what made her take him in. You imagine Dumbeldore in his magenta robes, ringing the Dursleys door to give them Harry. They would have closed the door to his face for sure.
Anyway, the fact that she took him and knows about the protection that she offers him could be assimilated as her consent and Harry's consent by extension, no?

[sherza]

Jul 14, 2012 16:47:22 GMT -5 @Ayrine Sun said:

Here's the question: while it's true that Dumbledore didn't ask directly Petunia to take Harry-and I believe that was his scheme to playing on her maternal feelings and sympathy (yes, the scarps), so when she found him on her step door, it enforced the idea that he was all alone in this world and probably that's what made her take him in. You imagine Dumbeldore in his magenta robes, ringing the Dursleys door to give them Harry. They would have closed the door to his face for sure.

They should have been allowed to make that decision, rather than be, essentially, forced to take Harry in. Do not delude yourself into thinking that letter Dumbledore left was simply

'I'm so sorry, but Lily died. Can you take Harry in?'

It was more along the lines of

'Lily died. If you don't take Harry in, you'll die too. But as long as he lives with you, you're protected.'

Granted, it was probably written in much more verbose, sneaky, and manipulative terms, but that would have been the gist of what he wrote.

Accepting someone under those terms isn't *true* acceptance. It's acceptance under duress. Which could, potentially, affect any intent-based wards placed on Privet Drive.

[Ayrine Sun]

Jul 14, 2012 16:52:33 GMT -5 sherza said:

They should have been allowed to make that decision, rather than be, essentially, forced to take Harry in. Do not delude yourself into thinking that letter Dumbledore left was simply

'I'm so sorry, but Lily died. Can you take Harry in?'

It was more along the lines of

'Lily died. If you don't take Harry in, you'll die too. But as long as he lives with you, you're protected.'

Granted, it was probably written in much more verbose, sneaky, and manipulative terms, but that would have been the gist of what he wrote.

Accepting someone under those terms isn't *true* acceptance. It's acceptance under duress. Which could, potentially, affect any intent-based wards placed on Privet Drive.

Then Petunia would have told him to protect Harry himself and that she didn't want him. Dumbledore couldn't take that risk. They have such a violent reaction to wizards and magic, that he decided to act this way.

Also, Petunia truly accepted Harry by herself, even if it was because of pity (it isn't said she has to love him more than anything). He didn't force her, yes he showed her a vulnerable and lonely baby and it influenced her, but she could have put him in an orphanage if she really wanted too.

The problem is that Harry is probably the only one able to finish Voldemort directly. With The prophecy starting it realisation. Dumbledore knows that he -himself- wasn't able to vanquish him even if he had the Elder wand. So Harry has absolutely to live. For himself and the rest of the people.

Also, Sirius' pseudo betrayal has probably shaken Dumbledore faith in wizards even more. If Sirius could betray them, who seemed to care about the Potters the most, then who to trust? Dumbledore himself is an old man. How many years does he still have? How many years before Voldemort is back to power? What protections would ensure that Harry would stay alive until his 17. He decided to trust Lily's protection. Because her love succeed to accomplish what any magic failed to do.

He knows the Harry would be unhappy, the Dursleys would never accept him or understand him. But he would live.

What upset me is the way JK wrote their actions toward him, if she didn't want him abused, she should have written it like that. She probably wanted to make him more pitiful and she exaggerated so much that she put in a cupboard ans starved him. While, in truth, she needed to show him being a little neglected and the Dursleys being more hard on him.
Of course when she back-paddled, or tried to do so it wasn't believable. But here is the problem, if JK refuses to knowledge Harry's abuse, how can her characters do it? So it created such mess, that it get on my nerves.

[sherza]

Jul 14, 2012 17:29:02 GMT -5 @Ayrine Sun said:

Jul 14, 2012 16:52:33 GMT -5 sherza said:

Then Petunia would have told him to protect Harry himself and that she didn't want him. Dumbledore couldn't take that risk. They have such a violent reaction to wizards and magic, that he decided to act this way.

Also, Petunia truly accepted Harry by herself, even if it was because of pity (it isn't said she has to love him more than anything). He didn't force her, yes he showed her a vulnerable and lonely baby and it influenced her, but she could have put him in an orphanage if she really wanted too.

The problem is that Harry is probably the only one able to finish Voldemort directly. With The prophecy starting it realisation. Dumbledore knows that he -himself- wasn't able to vanquish him even if he had the Elder wand. So Harry has absolutely to live. For himself and the rest of the people.

Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.

Ok, Thing One

Petunia SHOULD have been allowed to refuse. Period. Because raising a kid *only* because you're deathly afraid that yourself, your husband, and your own kid will be killed if you don't is a recipe for disaster.

I mean, let's put it this way. And before I put forth this scenario, let me say that I am in NO way thusly prejudiced.

Let's say that you have a sister, who falls in love with and marries a black guy. But you yourself are, if not a white supremacist, then the next best thing.

Said sister has a kid, and said kid is then dropped on your doorstep, with the expectation of you raising it, or else.

Yeah. Recipe for disaster, right there.

The *supposed* protection provided by the blood wards ... protection that could have been effected by any number of other means, IS NOT WORTH Harry being subjected to ten years of *any* level of abuse.

Why?

Abuse screws people up. Big time.

Dumbledore was risking the fate of the wizarding world at best, and the *entire* world at worst, pulling that bullshit. Harry could very easily have gone one of a couple routes *other* than the way he went.

1) Harry being timid, easily frightened, and withdrawn

2) Harry being ... well, Snape as a kid. In other words, rebellious as frack, suspicious as frack, and completely untrusting of any authority whatever.

3) Harry becoming the next Tom Riddle and becoming the next Dark Lord.

So yeah. If Dumbledore had *any* suspicions, period, as to how the Dursleys would treat Harry, with as much as would be riding on Harry's shoulders in future, he *absolutely* should not have placed Harry there. He should have placed Harry with someone he felt would not treat the boy badly and then done whatever he had to do to ensure their safety, even if that meant holdin their Fidelius himself.

[Ayrine Sun]

Jul 14, 2012 17:00:28 GMT -5 Kaiserin said:

Sun I was serious about wanting to know how you would apply the ward(s) to the house if you were Dumbledore and when?

OK, my imagination is not that good, but I will tray.
I imagine that Dumbledore performed a ritual, maybe he needed the ministry authorizations to use artefacts or places known before for those rituals. Places that had magic in them, after all magic's everywhere in the world and those places have somewhat a really positive energy, maybe a place where one or more life's sacrifice happened before or other good deeds where committed or is just concentrated with magic. The place act a little as the core of a wand, permitting a flux of energies to travel in it. Of course, those places are deserted because nobody use this type of magic any more.

So he does Something like invoking Lily's love, a portion of the extraordinary energy that protected Harry and that's still lingering on earth, positive energy attracting more of it and he transforms the energy from Lily's Love into pure magic, then using it to create an oath between Petunia and Harry. Yes, the ritual doesn't need more than Lily's love, but the oath isn't completely in place until Petunia accepts Harry. Those the consent.
As long that Harry live with her, Lily's love became wards and therefore ensuring that Harry survival. But of course the protection doesn't make him invincible.
Also, the oath is the wards itself, it means that even if Petunia decided to go live in Brazil for example, as long as she takes Harry with her, he would also be protected there

[Ayrine Sun]

Jul 14, 2012 18:01:15 GMT -5 sherza said:

Jul 14, 2012 17:29:02 GMT -5 @Ayrine Sun said:

Jul 14, 2012 16:52:33 GMT -5 sherza said:

Then Petunia would have told him to protect Harry himself and that she didn't want him. Dumbledore couldn't take that risk. They have such a violent reaction to wizards and magic, that he decided to act this way.

Also, Petunia truly accepted Harry by herself, even if it was because of pity (it isn't said she has to love him more than anything). He didn't force her, yes he showed her a vulnerable and lonely baby and it influenced her, but she could have put him in an orphanage if she really wanted too.

The problem is that Harry is probably the only one able to finish Voldemort directly. With The prophecy starting it realisation. Dumbledore knows that he -himself- wasn't able to vanquish him even if he had the Elder wand. So Harry has absolutely to live. For himself and the rest of the people.

Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.

Ok, Thing One

Petunia SHOULD have been allowed to refuse. Period. Because raising a kid *only* because you're deathly afraid that yourself, your husband, and your own kid will be killed if you don't is a recipe for disaster.

I mean, let's put it this way. And before I put forth this scenario, let me say that I am in NO way thusly prejudiced.

Let's say that you have a sister, who falls in love with and marries a black guy. But you yourself are, if not a white supremacist, then the next best thing.

Said sister has a kid, and said kid is then dropped on your doorstep, with the expectation of you raising it, or else.

Yeah. Recipe for disaster, right there.

The *supposed* protection provided by the blood wards ... protection that could have been effected by any number of other means, IS NOT WORTH Harry being subjected to ten years of *any* level of abuse.

Why?

Abuse screws people up. Big time.

Dumbledore was risking the fate of the wizarding world at best, and the *entire* world at worst, pulling that bullshit. Harry could very easily have gone one of a couple routes *other* than the way he went.

1) Harry being timid, easily frightened, and withdrawn

2) Harry being ... well, Snape as a kid. In other words, rebellious as frack, suspicious as frack, and completely untrusting of any authority whatever.

3) Harry becoming the next Tom Riddle and becoming the next Dark Lord.

So yeah. If Dumbledore had *any* suspicions, period, as to how the Dursleys would treat Harry, with as much as would be riding on Harry's shoulders in future, he *absolutely* should not have placed Harry there. He should have placed Harry with someone he felt would not treat the boy badly and then done whatever he had to do to ensure their safety, even if that meant holdin their Fidelius himself.

In any other situation you would be right.

But here the problem is my sister's baby is in mortal danger. I wouldn't be happy to have him, but I accepted him in my home, nobody forced me, which would mean that I still have some sympathy in my disgusting racist heart. (hate racists so much).

Dumbledore error or not (we will never know) is that he thought that the Dursleys were the only sure option.
You know the fidelius just proved that it wasn't sure, and as I say who to trust to be the kipper. Can he trusts that someone will stay in hiding for 11 years just for Harry? that he wouldn't be swayed like Sirius (Peter in reality) was? Dumbeldore can't take him himself, he still working at capturing death-eather, and what if he dies suddenly, he was 130 years old? what if someone use the opportunity to Kill Harry?

So he trusted the little sympathy that's in Petunia Heart.

He also probably trusted Lily love, that is in Harry's body, Harry in contrary of Tom was born of true love and got that love in form of magic in hid own flesh ans blood. Harry knows their love even if he doesn't remember his parents. The rest is a matter of Harry's choices.
The Dursleys are the one responsible of Harry misery. Dumbledore gave them Harry, but they also chose to treat him that way. He observed from far, not wanting to interfere (still believe that JK absurdly exaggerated Harry abuse to make it more sensational), he saw that Harry was sad but close his eyes about it, thinking that he would be at last alive.
That it was the lesser of two evils.

[sherza]

Jul 14, 2012 18:37:40 GMT -5 @Ayrine Sun said:

That it was the lesser of two evils.

Except that it completely isn't. As I pointed out, Dumbledore was running the very real risk of screwing Harry up to the point he'd be useless for kicking Voldie in the 'nads, or simply become Voldie Jr.

He could have held the Fidelius secret himself ... surely HE isn't going to sell Harry out? And have Remus raise Harry. Remus for DAMN sure wasn't about to sell out the Potters, and while there would have been an issue with full moons, that problem can be worked around. Better yet, Remus is a sensible man, with a good knowledge of the magical world in general and DADA in particular. Things it would be good for Harry to know, growing up, rather than growing up completely ignorant of everything.

And that's just *one* option out of many that Dumbledore could have employed to see to Harry's safety AND his well-being, rather than just keeping the kid safe from DE's and not giving a damn if Harry gets screwed up beyond any usefulness by spiteful, hateful, bigoted caretakers.

[physicssquid]

Sherza, you say that Dumbledore won't sell Harry out, but as people keep saying, he's over a hundred years old, what would happen if he died and he was the secret-keeper?
And your suggestion about Remus raising Harry, well, here's a problem. After James & Lily died, Remus was barely able to put food on the table for himself, how would he have raised Harry without money, especially if he felt that accepting money from Dumbledore or anyone else, was charity?

[sherza]

Jul 14, 2012 18:57:02 GMT -5 physicssquid said:

Sherza, you say that Dumbledore won't sell Harry out, but as people keep saying, he's over a hundred years old, what would happen if he died and he was the secret-keeper?

Then Remus (or whoever is raising Harry) becomes Secret Keeper. I don't see a problem here.

And your suggestion about Remus raising Harry, well, here's a problem. After James & Lily died, Remus was barely able to put food on the table for himself, how would he have raised Harry without money, especially if he felt that accepting money from Dumbledore or anyone else, was charity?

Harry's guardian, whoever they were, would have been getting a stipend for raising Harry, to use to buy whatever Harry needs, given that the Potters were, evidently, loaded and could set something like that up. All else fails, Remus could get it through the Muggle system, as there's generally such a thing set up for people caring for children who don't have much money. We know that Harry existed in the Muggle world (going to school meant he had to have vaccinations and such things, so there was a record of his existence *somewhere* in th Muggle world) and that the DE's evidently never found those records in canon (I think they traced his address thanks to his underage magic notice), so there'd be no real danger for Harry in applying to that system for aid if it came to it.

And while Remus might get tetchy about accepting 'charity' for himself, who is a grown up who ought to be able to fend for himself, accepting funds to help him raise Harry would be an *entirely* different kettle of fish.

[Ayrine Sun]

Jul 14, 2012 18:25:46 GMT -5 Kaiserin said:

I am trying to understand what you are saying. esentially that he invoked lily's love to bind harry and his aunt in an oath that no one said or heard. using a place away from Privet Dr. or some aretifact for some purpose to "power?" the ward. and that he did not actually do any casting on Harry nor the property? is that about what you said?

The oath exist before that night, but it's ancient magic, really few people knows or rather use it.
The same for this places or artefact, they aren't used any more, but they are still there. The place, which is saturated with magic act as the core of a wand, amplifying The power of Lily's love. enabling it to be used for the oath. Maybe the place was near Godric Hollow, or the artefact in the Ministry's storage.
It's not Privet Drive that is important, it Harry place in Petunia home. meaning her family, he is a member of her family, even if they are not really found with each other, what links them is Lily's love and their relation to her and each others. Dumbeldore used the power of Lily love and created a link between them, the link is the magic that was amplified and transformed and was cast upon them, but it wasn't active yet.
It became fully active only when Petunia accepted Harry in her home. The link is the wards.

[Ayrine Sun]

Jul 14, 2012 18:47:40 GMT -5 sherza said:

Except that it completely isn't. As I pointed out, Dumbledore was running the very real risk of screwing Harry up to the point he'd be useless for kicking Voldie in the 'nads, or simply become Voldie Jr.

He could have held the Fidelius secret himself ... surely HE isn't going to sell Harry out? And have Remus raise Harry. Remus for DAMN sure wasn't about to sell out the Potters, and while there would have been an issue with full moons, that problem can be worked around. Better yet, Remus is a sensible man, with a good knowledge of the magical world in general and DADA in particular. Things it would be good for Harry to know, growing up, rather than growing up completely ignorant of everything.

And that's just *one* option out of many that Dumbledore could have employed to see to Harry's safety AND his well-being, rather than just keeping the kid safe from DE's and not giving a damn if Harry gets screwed up beyond any usefulness by spiteful, hateful, bigoted caretakers.

If Dumbledore was the secret keeper and died than Remus would be the next keeper, and as much as Remus is good man, he is a werewolf, which implies 3 days of a month he is unavailable and has to leave their home and a week around it when he is too weak to do anything, he also can't get a job (but he could live off Harry money). the fact is Remus would need someone else to help him too, who to trust too? He also could be found by Voldemort (if he was back to power before Harry is 11) when he is out at the full-moon and torture him to reveal Harry's position. Even if he dies without revealing anything, Harry would be alone after that and his own secret keeper, Do you think he will stay there alone and not go searching for Remus? That's if there isn't any horrible law forbidding him from adoption by the Ministry.

So yes, Dumbeldore really believed that the best is Lily's love, he has seen to much and knows that Humans are Fallible, even himself.

And as I said he was also protected by Lily Love, which probably helped him understanding love and not becoming Voldie Jr.

The worst of two evils is Harry dying before he's 11, and yes any other option would be more dangerous. Don't underestimate Voldemort obsession with Harry. He would have used any means to get him, even more if Dumbledore is dead. Love is the only thing that have ever stopped Voldemort.

[sherza]

Exactly.

Harry could have died before age 11.

At the Dursley's hands.

That certainly would have solved Dumbledore's safety dilemma, wouldn't it?

I repeat, there were other, workable solutions. I admit Remus is not a perfect option, I was just using him as an example. There is NO EXCUSE, PERIOD for leaving a child in a *known* abusive situation, EVER. Much less when said kid has the fate of the world riding on their shoulders and needs to be as normal and functional as humanly possible.

[sherza]

Jul 14, 2012 19:50:48 GMT -5 Kaiserin said:

shakes head. O..K... Im still having a hard time figuring out your system, but to each their own. what about you sherza, how would your wards work in your own little world if you were that man. did he do something weird like sun said, did he cast on Harry/ the house how did he do it? Sun and sherza why don't we agree to disagree. I mean niether of you will change your opinion so we can just accept each others opinion and move on instead of arguing over remus.

My only quibble with the whole thing is that *nothing* was done about the Dursleys. If it HAD to be them, surely there was a way to ensure they didn't abuse Harry? Regular, unpredictable visits, if nothing else. Informing them that Harry would be examined regularly for evidence of ill care, including a review of his memories, and if such was found, there'd be all sorts of inventive hell to be paid? Something like that.

Ok, enough about that. You asked about how I think the wards could have/should have worked, in my version of Harry's world.

Optimally, there would have been no 'willing acceptance' required, nor a 'stay with someone who shares the same blood' requirement.

Lily AND James, as Harry's parents, would have performed some esoteric protection ritual for Harry that would be activated on their violent, untimely deaths. This ritual would shield Harry from harm by whoever killed his parents and/or their magically-linked minions, but is essentially useless against any other forms of harm or people wishing Harry harm (necessitating other wards on the property/area). Harry carried this protection with him everywhere, and it would have been permanent, making his blood unusable in the resurrection ritual ... it's essentially the nasties poison EVER to Voldie, and would have stopped the ritual dead in its tracks, possibly explosively, the second the blood was added.

To give Harry a safe place to live, wardstones whose runes have a drop or so of Harry's blood in them would be required, transfering the protection of his blood to whatever size area the wards were applied to, and anyone living within. The wards would not need yealy replenishment, either, as in my head, blood wards are one-time activated, and as long as someone of that bloodline is alive, the wards will keep working, whether or not the person of that bloodline lives where the wards are or not.