Originally posted by ares834
Fiendfyre is specifically referred to being dark magic and the fire that Dumbeldore used has absolutely no animalistic qualities at all. There is simply no way that was what Dumbeldore used.
Fiendfyre does not have to be 100% animalistic. It often manifests as such, but not always. And it is referred to as dark because of it's users, but it is not dark in and of itself.
Originally posted by dadudemonI never said he did not "know" anything about the Dark Arts. I said he would not use them, being that he's not a Dark wizard.
Wiki also indicates that it is a strong candidate for Fiendfyre due obvious reasons of it being very similar to fiendfyre.Since I can edit the wiki, it is only semblences that should be used and the fire has a large overlap into fiendfyre.
It is safer to say it is fiendfyre than it is to say it is something other than fiendfyre.
You have it exactly backwards. BECAUSE he is against evil, he knows quite a bit about dark arts...second only to Voldy. On top of this, magic used by dark wizards is not iherently dark: fiendfyre is considered dark magic because of how destructive it is but it is definitely not an evil magic, alone: it has become associated with evil due to the uses of it. But, because it can be used to destroy a dark magic, horcruxes, you could call it a "light art" assuming the subjective notion that horcruxes are evil (when, objectively, they really are not evil at all.)
Dumbles is quite the naughty wizard, as well. An older, wiser, more intelligent James Potter, imo.
And I can sense an impending morality debate. I personally agree that using the weapon of the enemy is not an inherently evil thing to do. But Rowling's universe seems to have a dichotomy of good and evil. Killing "splits the soul" it's so evil. The Dark Arts are the embodiment of evil in Harry Potter. In such a dogmatic, narrow-minded view of the Jedi world, using such an advanced Dark (Read: Evil) spell is simply out of the question for the champion of Good. It's probably why Rowling (and the film, though I give them less credit for proper character portrayal) never stated what it was that Dumbledore used in the cave. It's why I keep saying we should wait for Part II's depiction of Fiendyre before we start judging which of the three major fire spells we've seen is actually Fiendfyre.
Originally posted by Rogue JediCor=/=Coz.
So Dumbledore would do this:But he wouldn't use fiendfyre? Bullshit statement.
The book states that Inferi are vulnerable to fire. Not vulnerable to Fiendyre only, just fire. It's well within Dumbledore's powers to create fire on a large scale, but that doesn't mean it's born of the Dark Arts.
I don't remember the movie even mentioning Inferi, never mind their weakness, before the cave scene. The films are mediocre, I'll give them that credit, but they can be maddeningly unhelpful sometimes.
Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
So Dumbledore would do this:But he wouldn't use fiendfyre? Bullshit statement.
Holy crap, forgot about that.
That's definitely fiendfyre. 😆
Originally posted by Lord Lucien
I never said he did not "know" anything about the Dark Arts. I said he would not use them, being that he's not a Dark wizard.
In that case, please list every last magic Dumbldore used and classify each as good or bad magic.
You can add a second classification to it for whether or not you think it was situationally dark or light use.
Originally posted by Lord Lucien
And I can sense an impending morality debate. I personally agree that using the weapon of the enemy is not an inherently evil thing to do. But Rowling's universe seems to have a dichotomy of good and evil. Killing "splits the soul" it's so evil. The Dark Arts are the embodiment of evil in Harry Potter. In such a dogmatic, narrow-mindedview of the Jediworld, using such an advanced Dark (Read: Evil) spell is simply out of the question for the champion of Good. It's probably why Rowling (and the film, though I give them less credit for proper character portrayal) never stated what it was that Dumbledore used in the cave. It's why I keep saying we should wait for Part II's depiction of Fiendyre before we start judging which of the three major fire spells we've seen is actually Fiendfyre.
The debate was already had and over as there's nothing substantively new to the subjective vs. objective discussion that you or I could add (seriously. We'd just be rehashing the same points already made...in much more words.)
But since you did bring the dicussion back to something less philophical towards the end, there, the fire sustains itself and continued to pursue it's intended targets making this a pretty good case for the only instance fiendfyre was actually used in the films. The control dumbles had over the fire was so precise that it came with in less than an inch of Harry, but made direct contact with it's intended target, could not be put out by water, and continued to do it's job after the spellcaster finished: all attritubes of fiendfyre. The only attribute, which is not a requirement of every casting, is the sometimes animalistic appearances of the fiendfyre.
So, no, we do not need to wait for part 2: we have a perfectly defined case of fiendfyre.
Edit - Yes, I did see the strikethrough portion: so many parallels to The Force that it's rediculous.
Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
So Dumbledore would do this:But he wouldn't use fiendfyre? Bullshit statement.
Still gets redirected on the Wizards by the Jedi, in any case.
The troops with their temperature insulating body suits should be fine.
Originally posted by dadudemonDumbledore starts his fire attack, then kicks it like this to the Clones...
Well, I didn't really forget about it...I forgot about how awesome it was. 😄
"Now, I got the gun, you got the brew, you got two choices of what you can do, it's not a tough decision as you can see, I can fry your ass or you can roll with me."
At which Cody says "I'll ride with you if you can save my life, Anakin's after me for what I did do his wife, I did it like this, I did it like that, I did it with a wiffel bat."
😎
Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
But he wouldn't use fiendfyre? Bullshit statement.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Fiendfyre does not have to be 100% animalistic. It often manifests as such, but not always.
And it is referred to as dark because of it's users, but it is not dark in and of itself.
Originally posted by dadudemon
You have it exactly backwards. BECAUSE he is against evil, he knows quite a bit about dark arts...second only to Voldy. On top of this, magic used by dark wizards is not iherently dark: fiendfyre is considered dark magic because of how destructive it is but it is definitely not an evil magic, alone: it has become associated with evil due to the uses of it. But, because it can be used to destroy a dark magic, horcruxes, you could call it a "light art" assuming the subjective notion that horcruxes are evil (when, objectively, they really are not evil at all.)
Originally posted by dadudemonUh huh.
So, no, we do not need to wait for part 2: we have a perfectly defined case of fiendfyre.
When Part II shows what Fiendfyre looks like, we'll know for certain. If the filmmakers decide to make a huge deal of it, and make it purple with red lightning, we'll know Dumbledore did not use it. Neither the book, nor the movie tell us what Dumbledore did. Plain and simple. If you want to jump to a conclusion without definitive evidence from Crabbe, you go right ahead.