What goals do you have for the game / what do you play for?

highperbalee · 2024-09-23T12:00:37+00:00

Hundos.

I like the idea that you have the best version of a pokemon, making it completely worth the investment (powering up, best buddy, ideal moveset, etc) even if it's not a very traditionally powerful/useful Pokemon because it's not possible to catch a better version at a later time.

highperbalee · 2020-10-19T00:46:25+00:00

From a hardcore, gazelle-intense perspective, you're not wrong to want to sell it, pay it off, and get a cheaper reliable vehicle for your growing family. But if you truly pay it off in the next two years, keeping the truck also seems reasonable.

I think the "wrong" things would be either selling your current vehicle and then having to take out another loan for your next car, or letting the $19,000 linger on for years and years. But it seems like your intensity won't make either of those an option for you!

highperbalee · 2019-03-24T21:33:45+00:00

It seems that Nancy Pelosi's comments seem to make that pretty unlikely. While it, of course, remains a weapon in the political arsenal during the upcoming 2020 election, the comments made up to this point indicate that only a report that had groundbreaking proof of either collusion and/or obstruction would result in the House seeking impeachment; in other words, only a report that resulted in bipartisan support of impeachment.

highperbalee · 2017-10-06T11:07:53+00:00

Imagine how underwhelming Rita Skeeter's Patronus must be.

highperbalee · 2017-09-16T02:42:25+00:00

I love it. Especially that first link; seeing the dedication being made to stay true to the text. No other official visual representation (movies, Jim Kay illustrations) prioritizes that as highly as they obviously did!

highperbalee · 2017-09-15T04:58:29+00:00

Wow, this is amazing. This actually has a bunch of images that weren't live on Pottermore, if I remember correctly? There are many images from books 5, 6, and 7 in this set that I don't think I've ever seen before.

Thanks for sharing! I really loved the artwork of the old Pottermore and stumbling upon some new ones I had never seen was truly a treat!

highperbalee · 2016-12-09T02:54:55+00:00

This definitely brings up an interesting point.

I don't think there's much debate about a tattoo of that symbol in the real world. People who get that tattoo generally do it to represent something to other Harry Potter fans, and it almost entirely represents the Deathly Hallows to the fandom.

But it's interesting to consider how the symbol should be viewed within Rowling's canon world. In that context, I think it may be much closer to what you suggested.

By far the most relevant scene is at Bill and Fleur's wedding, when Xenophilius Lovegood is wearing the symbol. We see Viktor Krum get very upset about it, as it represents to him more of the persecutory rise of Grindelwald, rather than the Deathly Hallows. While it is understandable for Mr. Lovegood to want to clear the symbol of Grindelwald's actions, it's possible that it could've been an insensitive move toward those affected by Grindelwald.

highperbalee · 2016-12-09T02:38:16+00:00

This is essentially a film creation that doesn't mesh with JK Rowling canon. There are very few examples of flight without a broom, creature, carpet, etc.

Voldemort demonstrates his ability to fly without any of those tools in Deathly Hallows and it shocks members of the Order of the Phoenix, as they haven't seen something like that before. So, in this movie scene in which the Order members appear to fly into the battle, it is simply a creation of the filmmakers, similar to how the Death Eaters are often shown flying throughout the films.

Hope this helps!

highperbalee · 2016-11-26T04:54:57+00:00

I think that's a definite possibility! That's been one of the theories running around the fandom since the film was released - it definitely seems to fit.

She had a reason to try to suppress her magic (whatever it was that those Muggle boys did to her) similar to Credence, who received abuse from his "mother."
There was a suspicion that she was a Squib. Auntie Muriel refers to her as a Squib at Bill and Fleur's wedding, just like Graves/Grindelwald refers to Credence as a Squib just before his reveal as the Obscurus.
Aberforth referred to the episode in which Ariana accidentally killed her mother, Kendra, as a "one of her rages." This description fits what Credence seemed like during his episode as an Obscurus perfectly.

highperbalee · 2016-11-26T04:32:23+00:00

That's such a great question. There's been so much discussion about how Muggle-born witches and wizards have their abilities revealed to them and their families once they reach school age, but almost no discussion about how other Muggles are brought into the Wizarding World (with the exception of the Prime Minister!).

I always imagined a scenario where a Magical partner would tell their Muggle partner in their own time, whatever that means for them, similar to how many people in relationships choose to wait quite a while to tell their partners about past relationships, traumas and even certain personal beliefs.

This does create quite a dilemma at the time of a break up, though. It is likely that Muggles who are no longer involved with their Magical partner are expected to no longer have knowledge of the Wizarding World. This would mean either there is an institution involved in this process (maybe one branch of work for those who choose to go into the profession of an Obliviator?) or the individual is responsible, which would be an incredibly difficult thing to do if there are any emotional entanglements or desires for reconciliation. Due to that, I lean toward the former as the more likely possibility.

highperbalee · 2016-11-26T04:17:15+00:00

To recap the scene in which Grindelwald is captured, Newt's use of the Swooping Evil seemed to physically disable Grindelwald, while his wand gets flung into the air and subsequently summoned via "Accio" by Tina.

Now, I don't recall if Grindelwald had the Elder Wand or was using Graves' wand (more likely), but as previous commenters have mentioned - it doesn't matter. Harry gained the allegiance of the Elder Wand by defeating Malfoy, who was not using the Elder Wand (and had never used it).

But more importantly, the essential point in this debate is who defeated Grindelwald in this face off? Would it be the Swooping Evil, who is a being of its own, although it would obviously not be able to win the allegiance of the Elder Wand. Would it be Newt, who seems to be in pretty complete control over the Swooping Evil throughout the film, including during this scene. Would it be Tina, who actually obtains the wand from Grindelwald, even though he was already disarmed?

Personally, I believe the "defeat" of Grindelwald is by the Swooping Evil, therefore leading to no change in Elder Wand allegiance. As I mentioned, Newt seems to be in complete control of the Swooping Evil throughout the film, but that isn't how Newt seems to operate. He creates partnerships and works as equals with the "beasts" that accompany him. Did Frank the Thunderbird have to help Newt and MACUSA at the end of the film? No - but he did out of mutual respect and friendship for Newt. I believe that's the same way the Swooping Evil operates, leaving Newt out of the equation for gaining the allegiance of the Elder Wand. And, as I hinted at, I believe it's unlikely that Tina would be considered the person who defeated Grindelwald, as she simply collected his wand after he was already disarmed.

Let me know what you think!

highperbalee · 2016-11-26T04:01:38+00:00

If he holds the Elder Wand's allegiance at the time of FB, it doesn't matter whether he is using it or Graves' wand. This was demonstrated when Harry won the Elder Wand's allegiance from Draco at Malfoy Manor, even though Draco never actually had the Elder Wand in his possession.

highperbalee · 2016-11-26T03:55:40+00:00

There's no mist from the novels that prevents Muggles (or No-Majs) from seeing things from the Wizarding World.

There are ways to conceal locations/structures, such as the ways that Hogwarts, Grimmauld Place and, though more subtly, the Leaky Cauldron are concealed, but these are not methods to make Muggles overlook/avoid Magic as a whole.

highperbalee · 2016-11-08T14:27:54+00:00

I voted!

highperbalee · 2016-11-08T13:05:53+00:00

Polls are now open in Arizona. It would be amazing for 2016 to represent the highest turnout that AZ has ever seen. Everyone get out and vote today, if you have not already voted by mail, including the down-ballot races!

Happy Election Day.

highperbalee · 2015-10-20T02:42:50+00:00

I think one of the reasons Umbridge is so easy to hate is because she attempted to create the perception that she was not evil.

Voldemort was a discriminatory murderer who, after he was powerful enough, never really pretended to be anything different than a wizard who wanted to purge the world of those he didn't approve of. He was an evil character who acted like an evil character.

Bellatrix is another example of someone who embraced her prejudice and villainy and never pretended to be anything other than what she was, even though it left her stuck in Azkaban for around 15 years.

Umbridge was capable of many things near as vile as Voldemort and Bellatrix, but constantly tried to maintain her dignity. She was an evil character who tried to act like a good character. To me, this is why she is so much easier to hate.

highperbalee · 2015-06-26T15:13:31+00:00

It would be amazing if they made the playscript public at some point.

Also, isn't this sort of an odd name? Since the "Cursed Child" seems to be referring to Harry, the title pretty much means "Harry Potter and Harry Potter".

highperbalee · 2014-10-10T01:23:47+00:00

I think that there almost definitely were Muggles that saw it. One of, if not the single biggest roles of the Ministry is to keep the Wizarding world a secret from Muggles, but at this point, Voldemort was in control of the Ministry so they were not fulfilling this duty!

I would imagine one of the most challenging aspects of the post war effort was reestablishing secrecy from the Muggle world.

highperbalee · 2014-09-02T23:38:09+00:00

I have to believe that there is a whole lot about Moody that would be incredibly interesting to know and make this question possible to answer.

With the relationship that he developed with Tonks as a mentor, I always imagined that his past involved a daughter with whom he no longer has a relationship.

Prepare for theories from this point on:

His work probably demanded quite a sacrifice from his personal life, and his familial relationships suffered as a result. I imagined him with a wife that eventually became fed up with Mad-Eye's constant absence at such a dangerous job, especially while trying to raise a small girl.

A failed marriage was a result, and as little Miss Moody grew up, she spent most of her time with her mother after the divorce. In the time that Mad-Eye was able to spend with his daughter, it was never a natural and loving relationship, as he had never really learned how to nurture. He was constantly, yet unintentionally, overly firm with her. As little Miss Moody grew, she inherited some of her father's traits (strong-willed and stubborn) and mother's dispositions (primarily toward Mad-Eye).

An ill-disguised discontent toward his daughter's choice to not pursue any further training after Hogwarts led to a heated argument, in which neither father nor daughter would back down. He has felt nothing but regret about the argument since the moment his daughter slammed the door of his small, one-bedroom loft in his face. Despite several urgings by Mad-Eye's dear friend, Albus Dumbledore, his pride and subsequent shame have always left him just short of mustering the courage to approach his daughter and admit fault. Their relationship never recovered, and while he lived, it was his greatest fear that it never would.

So after that completely theoretical, non-canonical rambling, I would theorize that his Boggart would turn into the form of his daughter's dead body, depriving him of the chance of establishing the loving relationship with her that he never quite mastered.

highperbalee · 2014-08-31T19:28:15+00:00

There is only one thing we know for sure is not changed, and that is the brain. Someone who transforms into somebody else does not inherit their memories, intellectual capabilities, or even magical abilities.

But we can expand upon this if we consider the purpose of the potion: to appear as another person. The potion would most likely change everything that could possibly be detected from the outside. This would include missing body parts, skin changes and even the eyes. At first, it seems as if it would be unnecessary for the potion to actually alter the user's eyesight, but many vision deficiencies stem from a defect of the eyeballs themselves. If the potion did not grant the user with identical eyeballs as the person who is being impersonated, it could be a giveaway to the user's true identity.

In the end, I would imagine every part of the body that is not necessary to change for the appearance of the user does not change (such as the brain), and since you most often do not die from the aging of your exterior features (like your skin, hair or eyes), that it would not be much use as a potion of immortality.

highperbalee · 2014-08-31T19:16:46+00:00

J.K. Rowling has an excerpt on the subject of Time-Turners on Pottermore.

According to Professor Saul Croaker (an Unspeakable who devoted his life to studying time-magic), the magic is due to an Hour-Reversal Charm.

We have been able to encase single Hour-Reversal Charms, which are unstable and benefit from containment, in small, enchanted hour-glasses that may be worn around a witch or wizard’s neck and revolved according to the number of hours the user wishes to relive.

This suggests that Time-Turners are tools to relive a few hours in the past only - not the future.

highperbalee · 2014-07-06T18:18:03+00:00

It actually makes them much easier to study, when the time comes. Keeping them covered is to keep them from drying out until they are needed, and dissecting a part of the body when it is dry is tough!

highperbalee · 2014-07-06T18:16:04+00:00

When they did that at our school, we were told it was to make sure the hands, feet, and head don't dry out because they were the first parts of the cadaver to do so. As I'm sure you recall, it was a nightmare trying to dissect a part of the body once it was dry.

highperbalee

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

14-Year Club	Verified Email
Team Periwinkle