|
|
Post by werewulfking on Aug 30, 2012 20:13:12 GMT -5
Yes that all points towards the fact that they don't have to buy food from muggles. And honestly as Rowling herself said that she is bad with numbers we shouldn't put to much on the fact that she said 1 Galleon= 5 pounds. We would have to look at the prices in the books more closely to give an estimate.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kitty279 on Aug 30, 2012 23:58:33 GMT -5
Yeah, math isn't her strong point ... the number of students is rather inconsistent, too.
But what do we know in the way of prices?
- Harry's wand
- a copy of the Prophet
- one potions ingredient
That's all I can remember. Not much to go by.
|
|
|
|
Post by teflonbilly on Aug 31, 2012 7:46:50 GMT -5
For the Harry Potter based roleplaying campaign world that I've been working on I've used 1 Galleon = 50 Pounds = $100 US
It's the only thing that even makes moderate sense, it's why the Weasley's have so few galleons, it's how huge armloads of candy can only cost a few sickles and knuts. It's how only 1,000 galleons was enough for Fred & George to get their business off the ground. If it was 1G = 5 Pounds none of that makes sense, 5,000 pounds is just not enough money to be a barrier to getting a small business off the ground, 50,000 pounds does make sense.
As others have said, JKR has been never consistent when it came to numbers in her books. If you want them to make sense, you as the reader or fanfic/roleplaying world writer need to tweek things. I don't feel increasing the equivalent value of the currency to muggle money changes the overall tone or feel of the world so I have absolutely no problem doing it when I read or imagine the HP universe.
In the same way I choose to imagine a different reason for wandlore or Gamp's Stupid Laws of Transfiguration. Both of which make no sense in the previous 6 books worth of context or world building.
TB
|
|
|
|
Post by Kitty279 on Aug 31, 2012 10:01:56 GMT -5
While I know what JKR said about the conversion rate, I admit that it doesn't make much sense. So I don't have a problem with changing it.
Don't get me started on wandlore! What JKR invented for the last book about changing allegiance didn't make any sense to me. IF the wand changes allegiance when you disarm the owner, then at least half of Hogwarts would use wands that don't work for them. Or think about Aurors ... it appeared more like a spur-of-the-moment decision to explain why the killing curse didn't work on Harry and all that. But that mix of wandlore, blood protection and sacrifice didn't make that much sense to me, it was simply overkill.
|
|
Chameleon
Headmaster/Headmistress
Call me Headmistress Chams.
Posts: 1,873
|
Post by Chameleon on Aug 31, 2012 10:05:43 GMT -5
Ooh yes. I wished that JKR had figured another way for Harry to survive the killing curse. If that's true, then ... there would be more people who survived it the way JKR explained it. Suddenly Harry owns Draco's wand.. There's no sense in it.
|
|
|
|
Post by werewulfking on Aug 31, 2012 10:13:34 GMT -5
I do understand where you come from Kitty but to me the explanations of the seventh book were good ones. I always was under the impression that the Elder Wand is a special case and changes hands much more easily. But the normal wand joins back with it's original master if he can take it back or is given it back after being disarmed. Because the Elder Wand is extremely disloyal compared to normal wands.
But the short snipplet of Gamp's Law was a really stupid thing to write. Because if really thought through there have to be much bigger exceptions to transfiguration or there would be no poverty in the wizarding world.
|
|
|
|
Post by dracosfairmaiden on Aug 31, 2012 10:49:15 GMT -5
I agree with whoever mentioned the killing curse. Lily couldn't have been the only mother to sacrifice herself for her son. I'm sure there could have been others who survived it somewhere in the world. The way people talk about Lily's sacrifice makes it seem like she's the only one that did it. That she's a great hero for protecting her son.
Another thing I have a problem with the killing curse is that everyone acts like Lily alone protected Harry. Everyone just says that James gave them time, but it's just as honorable. I'm sure that if he had the choice, he would do the same thing Lily did. I know this has nothing to do with the topic, but I just want to get it out there.
|
|
|
|
Post by teflonbilly on Aug 31, 2012 12:56:51 GMT -5
But the short snipplet of Gamp's Law was a really stupid thing to write. Because if really thought through there have to be much bigger exceptions to transfiguration or there would be no poverty in the wizarding world. Removing Gamp's Law by itself wouldn't necessarily remove poverty in the wizarding world. Transfiguration of things into useful things (dirt into cloths, nothing into charcoal, thin air into food, etc...) could be possible but just take a lot of craft skill and magical talent to do correctly and that would be the reason for wizards still needing to buy things instead of conjure/transfigure them.. Also, Gold and Silver by themselves could be the sole exceptions to transfiguration/conjuration. That would be why people sought to much for the philosopher's stone (both historically, the lead to gold myths, and in universe with Nick Flamel's Stone.) That way, wizards wouldn't be able to just start transfiguring anything into gold, and gold would retain its value as a container of worth as a precious metal. But still, through effort and learning, be able to transfigure useful items from raw materials or even from thin air. It would be a task to the author to come up with the how and why wizards could still conjure/transfigure food from non-food, but still not have unlimited wealth. I personally feel that it could be done and still be in keeping with the tone and style of JKR's HP universe. I just haven't done it yet in my campaign world because I don't want to spend that much time contemplating economics, when I'm busy thinking how Phillips-Innsmouth Academy does House competitions and stuff (i.e. the things the players are going to actually care about.) TB |
|
|
|
Post by physicssquid on Aug 31, 2012 12:59:26 GMT -5
But the short snipplet of Gamp's Law was a really stupid thing to write. Because if really thought through there have to be much bigger exceptions to transfiguration or there would be no poverty in the wizarding world. I don't think it was that stupid to add the bit about Gamp's Law. The book says that there are five major exceptions, including food, which means that there are at least another four that are not mentioned. What if proper, legitimate money was another? Yes people would be able to conjure something that looks very like galleons, sickles and knuts, but thos items would not be accepted by either any shops or Gringotts, like Leprechaun gold. The conjured money would either be similar to Leprechaun gold and disappear after a few hours, or be considered forgery, like in the real world. |
|
|
|
Post by teflonbilly on Aug 31, 2012 13:14:20 GMT -5
But the short snipplet of Gamp's Law was a really stupid thing to write. Because if really thought through there have to be much bigger exceptions to transfiguration or there would be no poverty in the wizarding world. I don't think it was that stupid to add the bit about Gamp's Law. The book says that there are five major exceptions, including food, which means that there are at least another four that are not mentioned. What if proper, legitimate money was another? Yes people would be able to conjure something that looks very like galleons, sickles and knuts, but thos items would not be accepted by either any shops or Gringotts, like Leprechaun gold. The conjured money would either be similar to Leprechaun gold and disappear after a few hours, or be considered forgery, like in the real world. I personally feel that it's stupid because it really reduces the effectiveness of magic in the HP world (and that is just the one restriction against food, there are 4 others probably just as broad categories of restrictions) that just doesn't fit in the overall tone of the previous 6 novels. More narrow restrictions would have made much more narrative sense (maybe not as useful for that particular plot point, i.e. making the horcrux hunt more miserable for the Golden Trio) such as what I previously said about it just effecting Gold (or maybe just previous metals in general, or maybe even jewels as well) Or maybe against "prepared food" or animal products: you could conjure/transfigure wheat and vegetables but to conjure/transfigure higher order living being based products takes more magical power than what a human wizard is capable of in the HP universe. This would have made sense: You can conjure flour, tomatoes, and lentils, but not butter, eggs, or steak. This could be why wizards don't need large scale agriculture (no farms) but still need to raise livestock (Mrs. Weasley's chicken coop for eggs and meat.) I just thought of this off the cuff, but I think this will be the basis of what I do in my campaign world: simple plant based foodstuffs can be conjured/transfigured (for wizards who have learned how), but animal products are a no go (No Bacon for You!) TB |
|
|
|
Post by werewulfking on Aug 31, 2012 13:55:34 GMT -5
The reason why I think Gamp's law is stupid is that according to it nobody has to spend money on food because you can just buy it once and then just keep increasing it. And the same on all the other stuff you really need clothes or books. Just buy it once and then change and multiply it.
And to dracosfairmaiden: The point of Lily's sacrifice is not that she died for her son but that Voldemort gave her a real choice. He would have let her live hadn't she continued to protect Harry. I don't think any other murderer only wanted to kill the child and not the mother.
To teflonbilly: I don't think it is possible to really draw a line for wizards in the sense of: This is more complicated, they can't do it - This is less complicated, they can. Firstly even from a scientific viewpoint the difference for example between a tomatoe and meat is not that much in terms of complexity. Both are extremely complex.
Secondly this concept doesn't apply to wizards as they can transfigure animals pretty easily.
|
|
|
|
Post by teflonbilly on Aug 31, 2012 14:16:23 GMT -5
The reason why I think Gamp's law is stupid is that according to it nobody has to spend money on food because you can just buy it once and then just keep increasing it. And the same on all the other stuff you really need clothes or books. Just buy it once and then change and multiply it. I certainly agree, that is ANOTHER reason the Gamp's law was stupid and the Trio was even stupider. Like I said in another thread, all the Golden Trio would have had to do to solve their food problem was to take the risk and make ONE SINGLE TRIP into a muggle supermarket (which Britain most certainly has) and purchase non-perishables (heck if they have permanent freshness or freezing charms even the non-perishable restrictions goes away) such as: flour, rice, beans, canned vegetables, tuna, etc... And just Gemino duplicate it for each meal and they would be good. HOWEVER, why I think they didn't do this was that it ran up against JKR's other restriction on conjuration/transfiguration which is that things conjured from thin air will fade away over time (JKR made this statement in an interview that I just read a quote from.) Which means, most probably, that sure Hermione could have gemino duplicated a can of corn, but after they ate it the food would have eventually faded away and they would then have started to starve of malnutrition even though their bellies were full every night. I can see what you are saying but I think you are getting caught in using science and mundane thinking (I mean from a non-magical framework.) When I said that animals being higher level I was talking from a metaphysical sense. It is pretty clear that from a philosophical sense that plants are considered a lower order of being than animals (while scientifically there is not much difference in biological complexity between the two) And that is something people need to consider when trying to build in consistency within the magic system: consistency does not need to mean purely scientific consistency. It could just be a metaphysical quality within the HP universe that animals are ranked higher than plants, and beings that have souls are even higher than simple non-sentient animals. You can't prove this scientifically in the non-magical sense. How do you prove souls exist? In the real world you can't prove this scientifically. But in the HP universe, souls do in fact exist, that is a difference between plants and humans; humans have souls, plants do not. You could even say that higher level animals have souls (Mammals, reptiles, things with brains, etc...) in the HP universe without too much of a stretch in the imagination, and that would be the cause of not being able to create them. Pair this with JKR's conjuration restrictions (that conjured things fade away) then you could have that while yes you did transfigure you desk into a pig, but that isn't really a pig in a metaphysical sense (it has no relationship the the platonic concept of a what a pig is other than form) The desk may in fact be permenantly transfigured in this case, it will always be a mobile, semi-independant pig automaton, but it wouldn't have a soul and it would have no more nutritional value than the wood and metal that the desk was made from. Sure, that makes no sense scientifically, but it would make sense metaphysically and would be the basis for this effect magically. TB |
|
|
|
Post by werewulfking on Aug 31, 2012 15:07:22 GMT -5
teflonbilly I understand your Idea of having a philosophical difference decide the possibilities but after that you contradict yourself. How would it be possible for flour to have any nutrition if you conjure it from air but not meat?
The explanation is in fact great but you have to consequent and decide that all transfigured things return to their original state after a certain time which depends on the casters skill in transfiguration. But because no one can make air stay meat forever or long enough to be used up in a body it is not possible to transfigure any type of food.
|
|
|
|
Post by physicssquid on Aug 31, 2012 17:08:26 GMT -5
I also understand the idea of a philosophical/metaphysical difference between plants and animals, however, I do have a question. What about plants like Mandrakes and other plants that are sentient?
|
|
|
|
Post by mountaingirl777 on Aug 31, 2012 19:19:21 GMT -5
While I know what JKR said about the conversion rate, I admit that it doesn't make much sense. So I don't have a problem with changing it. Don't get me started on wandlore! What JKR invented for the last book about changing allegiance didn't make any sense to me. IF the wand changes allegiance when you disarm the owner, then at least half of Hogwarts would use wands that don't work for them. Or think about Aurors ... it appeared more like a spur-of-the-moment decision to explain why the killing curse didn't work on Harry and all that. But that mix of wandlore, blood protection and sacrifice didn't make that much sense to me, it was simply overkill. wouldn't the D.A. have a problem if disarming the owner makes the wands change allegience since they were learning disarming spells. Same if a class is learning disarming spells? Or does the wand know that they aren't actually disarming, that they are practicing? |
|
|
|
Post by mountaingirl777 on Aug 31, 2012 19:26:08 GMT -5
I think the whole transfiguration thing is something like an illusion, what you transfigure really isn't real. like turning a mouse into a pin (or whatever it was), it's an illusion. That is why Gamps law is there. you can't eat an illusion. To me it is like mirage. that might be my muggleness showing, but that is how I feel. Almost like what someone else said "Leprechaun gold".
|
|
|
|
Post by teflonbilly on Aug 31, 2012 19:42:28 GMT -5
I think the whole transfiguration thing is something like an illusion, what you transfigure really isn't real. like turning a mouse into a pin (or whatever it was), it's an illusion. That is why Gamps law is there. you can't eat an illusion. To me it is like mirage. that might be my muggleness showing, but that is how I feel. Almost like what someone else said "Leprechaun gold". While that is a very simple way to explain away the reasons behind Foods intranfigurability. I don't think it meshes well with how magic is described in the HP universe. Also, and this is me talking as a long time Dungeons & Dragons player, Illusion in fantasy is usually very distinct from Tramsutation/Transfiguration/Transformational spells. And the actual physical changes associated with most transfiguration spells in HP just don't match up with Illusions (which are usually given to be either magical created visual duplicates or magically induced hallucinations of the mind.) I know I am mixing genres/fantasy worlds here, but I think I'm ok with regards to this perception of how magic is described to work in most western fantasy. No, I'm more inclined to say that Gamp's Laws are a magical law in the same way as the Law of Gravity is a natural law. TB |
|
|
|
Post by Kitty279 on Sept 1, 2012 0:12:29 GMT -5
wouldn't the D.A. have a problem if disarming the owner makes the wands change allegience since they were learning disarming spells. Same if a class is learning disarming spells? Or does the wand know that they aren't actually disarming, that they are practicing? My point exactly. Disarming should be something they learn sometimes during school, so it wouldn't even be limited to the DA. When you think it through logically, that doesn't fit well with the Elder Wand stuff - save it is one of a kind. But if only the Elder Wand reacts that way, then why did it work because Harry took Draco's normal wand? Sure, Olivander said the wand choses the wizard. But when every disarming causes the wand to change its allegiance, then you'd only have to disarm someone to force the wand to your will. But I didn't get the feeling that's how it worked for the rest of the DH book or in fact the series. As for Gamps Law ... didn't Molly in GoF when she was ranting about the twins while cooking (between getting Harry from PD and the World Cup) just point the wand and a sauce poured out of it? Mrs. Weasley slammed a large copper saucepan down on the kitchen table and began to wave her wand around inside it. A creamy sauce poured from the wand tip as she stirred.For me that sounds very like conjuring food. How does that fit with the whole concept? |
|
|
|
Post by teflonbilly on Sept 1, 2012 0:20:34 GMT -5
wouldn't the D.A. have a problem if disarming the owner makes the wands change allegience since they were learning disarming spells. Same if a class is learning disarming spells? Or does the wand know that they aren't actually disarming, that they are practicing? My point exactly. Disarming should be something they learn sometimes during school, so it wouldn't even be limited to the DA. When you think it through logically, that doesn't fit well with the Elder Wand stuff - save it is one of a kind. But if only the Elder Wand reacts that way, then why did it work because Harry took Draco's normal wand? Sure, Olivander said the wand choses the wizard. But when every disarming causes the wand to change its allegiance, then you'd only have to disarm someone to force the wand to your will. But I didn't get the feeling that's how it worked for the rest of the DH book or in fact the series. As for Gamps Law ... didn't Molly in GoF when she was ranting about the twins while cooking (between getting Harry from PD and the World Cup) just point the wand and a sauce poured out of it? Mrs. Weasley slammed a large copper saucepan down on the kitchen table and began to wave her wand around inside it. A creamy sauce poured from the wand tip as she stirred.For me that sounds very like conjuring food. How does that fit with the whole concept? The assumption is that Molly already had the ingredients in the kitchen, she just summoned them/prepared them automatically with her magic and had the sauce appear from her wand. TB |
|
|
|
Post by Kitty279 on Sept 1, 2012 1:59:16 GMT -5
To me that's not how it sounded in the book, it's more an attempt to reconcile what was said there with what JKR wrote in the last book.
|
|
|
|
Post by werewulfking on Sept 1, 2012 8:00:13 GMT -5
I have to agree with teflonbilly. I also think that Molly summoned the already prepared sauce or just prepared it instantly with magic.
And Kitty what do you think about the explanation I gave above? "I always was under the impression that the Elder Wand is a special case and changes hands much more easily. But the normal wand joins back with it's original master if he can take it back or is given it back after being disarmed. Because the Elder Wand is extremely disloyal compared to normal wands. "
Don't you think it would be possible that normal wands change their allegiance back to their original owner as soon as they are handed back to them?
|
|
|
|
Post by Kitty279 on Sept 1, 2012 8:19:56 GMT -5
Did you think that from the beginning, or only after DH? For I always did read it as conjuration. If the sauce was already made, why not just pour it from another bowl, but have it pour from the tip of the wand, after she was waving it around in the saucepan?
As for the wand mess ... no, it seems a bit strange to me that the Elder Wand works so much different. Besides, if normal wands change back to their owner the moment they are handed back in training, then the whole changing allegiance is completely useless.
And I can't remember too well which other wands the trio got in DH and how exactly it was done, but I didn't get the impression that the others had changed their allegiance enough to work for them all that well. But shouldn't disarming the real owner do the trick if it works at all? Harry just plucked the wand out of Draco's hand and that was enough to change the allegiance of a completely different wand? For me that's too contrived.
Then there is the Elder Wand. Grindelwald did *not* really defeat Gregorovitch, he only stole the wand (which seems to have happened more than once over time). How does the wand change allegiance when it's not conquered in any way, shape or form? Could Dumbledore even get its allegiance for himself by defeating Grindelwald who was not the real owner? How did Voldemort expect to get ownership when he stole it?
|
|
