Hi Annerb! Thanks For The Lucky Series, And All Your Other Slytherin!Ginny Work, Which Has Been A Delight

Hi Annerb! Thanks for the Lucky series, and all your other Slytherin!Ginny work, which has been a delight and also helped me understand some things about myself. You mentioned using D/D alignment charts for Hogwarts houses. Could you please expand a bit on that, if that's alright?

Okay, so the D&D alignment charts have two main axes: lawful/neutral/chaotic and good/neutral/evil. (And full disclosure up front that I am not an expert at this at all. I just used it as guidelines and a starting point to help me think about the houses and formulate my general approach for writing The Changeling.)

Let’s look at the first. We can break it down very simplistically to these two ideas:

Lawful – creatures of habit Chaotic – unpredictable

Hufflepuffs and Slytherin are both creatures of habit, more tied to convention, tradition, and law. Gryffindors and Ravenclaw are not bound by tradition, and can be unpredictable, they are more likely to follow their whims.

Now, the second set is where things got a bit more sticky: good versus evil. Which I will admit, I refused to put any house in evil. That was kind of the whole point of The Changeling. I guess for me, individual action will be what puts someone in the evil category. But I still looked at Good versus Neutral.

Good – altruism, respect for all life, personal sacrifice for greater good Neutral – “have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships.” (from this wiki)

To me, Hufflepuffs and Gryffindor both fall into ‘good.’ They put altruism above all things and support of ‘the good’ as a broad concept. Ravenclaw and Slytherin, while not being evil or against ‘good,’ do not necessarily see the same ‘greater good’ that the Gryffindor and Hufflepuff might. Their commitment is shaped by something else, in this case, personal relationships or webs of exchange. (Though I might argue that Ravenclaw are shaped by pursuit of knowledge/understanding above all else.) They are both more driven by ambition than altruism.

So we end up with:

Hufflepuff – lawful good (though you might be able to argue neutral good, altruism above law)

Gryffindor – chaotic good

Ravenclaw – chaotic neutral

Slytherin – lawful neutral

What I love with this, ultimately, is that some of the houses share an element in common, they are just shaped slightly different by their other alignment. Such as, Hufflepuff and Gryffindors both focus on the greater good, but Hufflepuffs do it through the lens of law and tradition and stability, while Gryffindors approach it through chaotic disregard for any tradition or law that gets in their way. Similarly, Hufflepuff and Slytherin are both bound by tradition and law, but Hufflepuff focuses on the greater good, while Slytherin focuses on the relationships that bind people together (whether blood or other connection).

But then you have the houses aligned to opposite corners from each other. Like with Slytherin and Gryffindor, and you can almost see how they speak a different language entirely. To the Slytherin, the Gryffindor are chaotic and have no respect for tradition and convention and are completely out of control, and to the Gryffindor, Slytherin are staid and boring and have giant sticks up their arses. To a Gryffindor, they only see Slytherin not supporting their vision of the greater good, and miss the web of relationships that ground their morality, which might lend itself towards a view of them as ‘evil’. And for a Slytherin, this Gryffindor ‘friend to all’ might seem like a lack of conviction, a caprice that shows no true deep forging of any kind of true relationship ties. They seem like giant faking hypocrites.

You also have Hufflepuff and Ravenclaw similarly oriented. To a Ravenclaw, Hufflepuff seems to lack imagination, interests, or deep commitments. To Hufflepuff, Ravenclaw are unpredictable and cold, and frankly frightening.

Ultimately when writing these houses, it’s realizing that none of them are wrong, they just view the world through different lenses. But also understanding how much perception plays into the ways these houses interact. How much they are all primed to misunderstand each other. But also how much they are set up to help each other. This really is where my understanding of what a unified DA could be in the final year of the war. And helped guide me for all the interactions between the houses.

(As a side note for the Armistice Series, I think a great example of perceptions being shaped by alignments is from in my head we do everything right, specifically how Harry perceived Ginny’s actions during her inquiry. He saw them as self-sacrifice for the greater good (his own alignment), whereas having been in Ginny’s head during the events, we know she wasn’t thinking about the greater good or noble self-sacrifice. She wasn’t thinking about what was right and good, she was thinking about the DA/her friends (her in-group), and what she was not willing to let them be subjected to. How she would use law and convention to protect herself and them as well. She never once was like “Oh, I’ll just let myself get chucked in jail to prove a point.” But that is exactly what Harry sees (and what he would probably do). It’s a fun little look into the different ways they approach things, and how it can lead to misunderstandings sometimes, but also most importantly that their outcomes are aligned, even if their approaches are not.)

Ravenclaw: Are you two fighting ot flirting?

Slytherin and Gryffindor: Yes

Two questions on the girls and women of the Parlor: First, how much do they know about what happened during the early books of Harry Potter? What does Theodora think happened to Quirrell, and just what was he trying to steal, for example. Second, will we ever see Harry interact with them after the relationship goes public?

That’s an interesting question. Because I seem to recall Dumbledore saying something to Harry like, what happened with Quirrell is a complete secret, so naturally everyone knows. So my take from that is that everyone knows about Voldemort being in the back of Quirrell’s head? I doubt anyone knew about the philosopher’s stone, really. And to judge from everyone’s reactions in the fifth book when Harry starts smart-mouthing Umbridge over Quirrell being an alright teacher except for having VOLDEMORT in the back of his head, I wonder if people ever really believed it? Or if they just kind of wrote it off? I think even the idea of Voldemort was so scary and the idea of war so foreign to most of these kids, it was easier to try to forget. Or assume it was an exaggeration.

As for Theodora, who would have been a fourth year at the time, I think she would be less likely to brush off the information as rumor. Like most things, she quietly collected it, thought about what it might mean for her and her future, and then carried on, ears always open for more. The fight against Voldemort wasn’t hers, but a thing to be navigated. Men could carry on destroying each other to their heart’s content as far as she was concerned.

Harry will get a chance to interact with the former Parlor girls. Though more Antonia than Theodora. Though now that you’ve put it in my head the idea is tantalizing! Especially if she tried to give Ginny another little ‘test’ of hers and Harry lost his shite over someone talking to her that way. Ha. That would be fun. As for Astoria…yes. Meaning Draco will more than likely drift back into Harry’s sphere. That will be fun. 

you can't have daddy issues if you don't have a dad

slytherin + house traits 

{ravenclaw} 

Theodora :: Antonia :: Ginny

The world isn’t kind to girls with strange ambitions…