Remove ads

Harry Potter and the Scabbard of Excalibur [AU]

Reader mode
I'm waxing contrarian. I suspect there to be some kind of advantage to the Bask route to balance the psychological liability of Arrogance but am unsure what it is. Willpower boost? Confidence is an important part of public speaking. We'd need to do something about the Swagger but I suspect Bask in Glory will be helpful for us if we ever seek to play the Demogogue. Thoughts?
 
Let's be dashing hero we suppose to be. There is literally a shit ton of books about humble Harry, who hates fame. Called "Harry Potter something something"

[ ] Bask in Glory - Acclaim among peers is something every child wants; surely, there's nothing wrong with smiling for your fellow students and signing a few autographs from the girls in the upper years? Harry's attitude through this school year will be self-confidence and swagger.

[ ] Play Around With Magic, Share Spells
 
Last edited:
Changing my voice.
I didn't notice initially but * Harry's attitude through this school year will be humility and willingness to step back * We can't afford to back down, we have to take full advantage of every opportunity to hone our skills for graduation. In addition, it is precisely this way of acting that Harry's skills will contribute to.

[X] Bask in Glory
 
[X] Play Around With Magic, Share Spells
[x] Bask in Glory
 
Last edited:
Changing my vote to:

[X] Get To Know Your New Friends
[x] Bask in Glory

Due to the following quote from Birdsie:

I feel the thread underestimates the potential of masculine selfconfidence
You are essentially picking Harry's initial reaction to puberty
Making him a mousy boy has its advantages, but will also render him less reliable socially
Aside from upperyear Hufflepuffs surrounding him, cooing at him, and giving him headpats
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I'm not sure how much I agree with the idea of it all, but I'm not the QM and being a social butterfly is better for us.
 
Last edited:
The more I think about it the more that I'm growing fond of Bask in Glory. We picked BWL, it only makes sense that we should become comfortable with our fame. Bask in Glory will help with that and will lead to us being willing to use said fame to our ends. Something that will come very very useful in the political issues that we will be confronted with.
 
son et lumiere said:
The more I think about it the more that I'm growing fond of Bask in Glory. We picked BWL, it only makes sense that we should become comfortable with our fame. Bask in Glory will help with that and will lead to us being willing to use said fame to our ends. Something that will come very very useful in the political issues that we will be confronted with.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Being demure is not good for leadership, but people are (fairly, in my mind) worried about the swagger part.

Ultinately being confident in social situations is more important, though I don't like the dichotomy of choices here.
 
Sara said:
If your refering to the bit about Harry telling the sorting hat anything but slytherin and stuff, I think even canon gets to this but it's been a while, but the interpretation i've always gone with is that it actually didn't influence the hats decision for Harry except insofar as it showed qualities that displayed canon Harry's gryffindor inclinations. Like being brave enough to brook convention by trying to choose his own house rather then let it be chosen for him as was traditional because of his poor moral view of their members and by staying firm despite the sorting hats feigned attempts to tempt him with the power being part of house slytherin could offer.


Had Harry done the exact same thing except with Gryffindor because he had a bad encounter with a first year who assumed they'd be apart of the dorm, I think the sorting hat would have still put him in Gryffindor not in spite but because of that same inclination they displayed.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

All the arguments you have given look convincing, indeed, the choice of a hat can be accurate and complete, but there is one drawback here: people are not static characters. Remember the same Peter Pettigrew when he was enrolled in Gryffindor, but by the end of his studies he had more of a Slytherin mentality. Thus, suppose we have an average person, he has a weak connection with the principles of Hufflepuff, but the connection with the rest of the houses is even less, he naturally falls into Hufflepuff, but growing up, he acquires a personal characteristic of another house, while discarding the remnants of Hufflepuff traits. As a result, we formally get a Huffpuffian student who bears the traits of another faculty, and according to the logic presented by you, the Huffpuff Lord will not have any influence on such a student, because he is not a real Huffpuffian, but the description of the skill does not say anything about the criteria of character, there is only a criterion of belonging to the faculty.
 
I'd really rather not read a Harry who acts like canon Lockhart. I think in the long run not being a total git will earn more friends and allies. Canon Harry is fairly humble, and turns into an excellent leader. Someone people follow out of respect. Substance over flash.
 
Last edited:
TaliesinSkye said:
I'd really rather not read a Harry who acts like canon Lockhart. I think in the long run not being a total git will earn more friends and allies. Canon Harry is fairly humble, and turns into an excellent leader. Someone people follow out of respect. Substance over flash.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Why can't you have both substance and flash?

And no, we won't be acting like Lockhart. The guy was a fraud and dumbfuck. We're just going to be someone with a ton of confidence that doesn't shy away from fame.
 
[X] Play Around With Magic, Share Spells
[x] Bask in Glory

10 year olds getting magic? Best toy ever.

Also, the world's our oyster.
 
TaliesinSkye said:
I'd really rather not read a Harry who acts like canon Lockhart. I think in the long run not being a total git will earn more friends and allies. Canon Harry is fairly humble, and turns into an excellent leader. Someone people follow out of respect. Substance over flash.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

The issue is that the scenario presents two extremes - either you are overconfident or a complete doormat, birdsie confirmed it himself (quote above)

I'd rather be overconfident for now and then temper it over time than the other way around - having good social skills and charisma is massively important, even if it comes at a cost like this.
 
TaliesinSkye said:
I'd really rather not read a Harry who acts like canon Lockhart. I think in the long run not being a total git will earn more friends and allies. Canon Harry is fairly humble, and turns into an excellent leader.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I don't know, whatever you think about modern celebrity culture as a concept, I don't think literally all of them are 'total gits' that are indistinguishable from a man who brainwashed children to build up his own reputation.

I'm met plenty of self confident people, some of whom are even guilty of the ultimate sin of speaking with pride about things they done or traits about themselves, and some of these same people just happen to be lovely to spend time with.

Their are ways being too confident in yourself just like their ways that having too low self esteem can be bad for you and those around you, but outside those extremes I think you can be a good person regardless and not in spite of whether your humble or boisterous, yknow?



Fghubyygvb said:
All the arguments you have given look convincing, indeed, the choice of a hat can be accurate and complete, but there is one drawback here: people are not static characters. Remember the same Peter Pettigrew when he was enrolled in Gryffindor, but by the end of his studies he had more of a Slytherin mentality. Thus, suppose we have an average person, he has a weak connection with the principles of Hufflepuff, but the connection with the rest of the houses is even less, he naturally falls into Hufflepuff, but growing up, he acquires a personal characteristic of another house, while discarding the remnants of Hufflepuff traits. As a result, we formally get a Huffpuffian student who bears the traits of another faculty, and according to the logic presented by you, the Huffpuff Lord will not have any influence on such a student, because he is not a real Huffpuffian, but the description of the skill does not say anything about the criteria of character, there is only a criterion of belonging to the faculty.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I think it's important to remember two things. One, your example of Peter Pettigrew is one i'm glad you brought up, because I think it helps my point. Peter was a pretty rare phenomenon known as a Hat Stall where the sorting hat doesn't almost immediately decide where to place the child, and he took a unprecedented five minutes of deliberation by the hat on whether to place him in Gryffindor or Slytherin. So it's not that he slowly morphed over time to take on those slytherin like qualities, it's that they were always there according to the Sorting Hat. Now, Peter is a fascinating character in some respectes and I could go on for a while about how say, I think the fact that he was able to put up with being a pet rat for such a extended amount of time is way more of a show of Gryffindor determination or nerve then any sort of Slytherin trait like Pride, given how not only humiliating but realistically how horrible a life that must have been for any human being to endure.

However, I'll keep things brief and go with the end of his life. but as people You-Know-Who had grafted a silver hand on to him that would strangle him if he ever showed any sign of disobeying Him. During the breakout from Malfoy Manor, when he stumbled on Harry and Ron he was about to kill the former before Harry reminded Peter of his life debt to him. Despite full well knowing the slightest hesitation would have caused his own death, the moment he was reminded of Harry's earlier kindness towards him he was unable to go through with it, to predictable results.

When confronted with this knowledge outside the novels proper, JK Rowling wrote about how the Sorting Hat took that act as a show of bravery at the most dire cost possible that would have overwise doomed the wizarding world due to Harry's death, and that this evidence confirmed his choice of making Peter a Gryffindor. In interviews and other ooc statements, JK would refer to this as a moment of redemption for at great cost for what Peter had done at life and also talked about how he's a example that the moral universe of harry potter is slightly more complicated then 'Gryffindor good, Slytherin bad' though ymmv how well you think it made tha point, not supposed to show that the sorting hat was full of shit.

The second thing is that I actually thinking that pointing out that people's characters change improves my point rather then debunks it. Consider that the sorting hat is a magical artifact created by the four greatest wizards of their age, in a world where diviniation expressly exists, what actual magical powers it uses to judge people are poorly understood in universe, and is present in a plot that heavily relies upon vague but seemingly unbreakable prophecies. Consider also that despite being picked at the ages of 10, every year of a house seems to by and large reflect the characteristics of a house in aggregate despite you expecting to see the sort of drift from those values in quite a few of them over the years even in enviorments that go too far more extremes to instill their guiding values. Consider that this seems to hold true even past graduation, with the norm of adult characters even outside of the faculty being defined by what house they were placed in during the time in school. Also, keep in mind even the most Gryffindor of Gryffiindor who was seen as worthy of Godricks Sword, experienced a fair deal of character growth over the books that shaped him into more of that archetype.

From a doylist persective I might call this lazy world building, but from a Watsonian perspective? That tells me that the sorting hat is basing it's criteria not just on what sort of person they are at 10, but what sort of person they'll grow to be.

That makes sense?
 
Sara said:
I don't know, whatever you think about modern celebrity culture as a concept, I don't think literally all of them are 'total gits' that are indistinguishable from a man who brainwashed children to build up his own reputation.

I'm met plenty of self confident people, some of whom are even guilty of the ultimate sin of speaking with pride about things they done or traits about themselves, and some of these same people just happen to be lovely to spend time with.

Their are ways being too confident in yourself just like their ways that having too low self esteem can be bad for you and those around you, but outside those extremes I think you can be a good person regardless and not in spite of whether your humble or boisterous, yknow?





I think it's important to remember two things. One, your example of Peter Pettigrew is one i'm glad you brought up, because I think it helps my point. Peter was a pretty rare phenomenon known as a Hat Stall where the sorting hat doesn't almost immediately decide where to place the child, and he took a unprecedented five minutes of deliberation by the hat on whether to place him in Gryffindor or Slytherin. So it's not that he slowly morphed over time to take on those slytherin like qualities, it's that they were always there according to the Sorting Hat. Now, Peter is a fascinating character in some respectes and I could go on for a while about how say, I think the fact that he was able to put up with being a pet rat for such a extended amount of time is way more of a show of Gryffindor determination or nerve then any sort of Slytherin trait like Pride, given how not only humiliating but realistically how horrible a life that must have been for any human being to endure.

However, I'll keep things brief and go with the end of his life. but as people You-Know-Who had grafted a silver hand on to him that would strangle him if he ever showed any sign of disobeying Him. During the breakout from Malfoy Manor, when he stumbled on Harry and Ron he was about to kill the former before Harry reminded Peter of his life debt to him. Despite full well knowing the slightest hesitation would have caused his own death, the moment he was reminded of Harry's earlier kindness towards him he was unable to go through with it, to predictable results.

When confronted with this knowledge outside the novels proper, JK Rowling wrote about how the Sorting Hat took that act as a show of bravery at the most dire cost possible that would have overwise doomed the wizarding world due to Harry's death, and that this evidence confirmed his choice of making Peter a Gryffindor. In interviews and other ooc statements, JK would refer to this as a moment of redemption for at great cost for what Peter had done at life and also talked about how he's a example that the moral universe of harry potter is slightly more complicated then 'Gryffindor good, Slytherin bad' though ymmv how well you think it made tha point, not supposed to show that the sorting hat was full of shit.

The second thing is that I actually thinking that pointing out that people's characters change improves my point rather then debunks it. Consider that the sorting hat is a magical artifact created by the four greatest wizards of their age, in a world where diviniation expressly exists, what actual magical powers it uses to judge people are poorly understood in universe, and is present in a plot that heavily relies upon vague but seemingly unbreakable prophecies. Consider also that despite being picked at the ages of 10, every year of a house seems to by and large reflect the characteristics of a house in aggregate despite you expecting to see the sort of drift from those values in quite a few of them over the years even in enviorments that go too far more extremes to instill their guiding values. Consider that this seems to hold true even past graduation, with the norm of adult characters even outside of the faculty being defined by what house they were placed in during the time in school. Also, keep in mind even the most Gryffindor of Gryffiindor who was seen as worthy of Godricks Sword, experienced a fair deal of character growth over the books that shaped him into more of that archetype.

From a doylist persective I might call this lazy world building, but from a Watsonian perspective? That tells me that the sorting hat is basing it's criteria not just on what sort of person they are at 10, but what sort of person they'll grow to be.

That makes sense?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...


Everything looks logical therefore.
Free will 0:1 Distributing hat.
It's funny if the distributing hat really has such power as you describe, then with a different development of history, the world of Harry Potter could become a good dystopia (or utopia) where a person's life from the moment of birth was determined by a conclave of distributing hats.
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top