• The Infractions Forum is available for public view. Please note that if you have been suspended you will need to open a private/incognito browser window to view it.

[Hogwart's Musings] Should the House System be Abolished?

Ficino

Rascally Rabbit
Validated User
I mean, besides intramural sports, what purpose do the houses serve? As it, even considering sports, they seem purpose built to create animosity and rivalries between students.
I'd say that they are mainly there to create a sense of belonging among kids uprooted and moved away from home. This does involve competition in sports, and other things, and, inevitably, a degree of looking-down-the-nose at other houses. But on the whole the positive is supposed to outweigh the negative, and certainly could. I think the main reason the system can look bad in the novels is the need for villains, which can then be reliably associated with Slytherin.

Also, part of the appeal of the books is that they are part of the English boarding-school genre, with magic added in. The specific houses are made up of course, but the house system is (or was) found in many U.K. boarding schools. Taking them out of Hogwarts would distance the books from their source material, and (I'd guess) decrease their attractiveness for at least part of their audience.
 

Rachel Cartacos

Social Justice Dragon
Validated User
Not just boarding schools even, my primary school used a house system (albeit it was basically meaningless outside of sports day)
 

Bremen

Member
RPGnet Member
Validated User
Pettigrew was in Gryffindor. So no, not all of Voldemort's cadre were former Slytherin.


And per the book 7 epilogue at least, after the events of the books... Slytherin looks kinda fixed. Draco is a better man than his father was, and Harry (who should know the state of affairs better than us) tells his son not to worry about the possibility of being sorted into Slytherin.

So going to come down on the side of "no, the Houses don't need to be abolished. The problem was in wizard society and just manifested at Hogwarts".
I believe that Rowling actually stated that, with the exception of Voldemort's wizarding wars, most dark wizards actually come from Ravenclaw. It's just the wizarding wars we see in the books were based on pureblood ideology, which is mostly Slytherin's thing.
 

kitty voodoo

Social Justice Slytherin
Validated User
I believe that Rowling actually stated that, with the exception of Voldemort's wizarding wars, most dark wizards actually come from Ravenclaw. It's just the wizarding wars we see in the books were based on pureblood ideology, which is mostly Slytherin's thing.
Linkage? Cuz that's the first I've heard of that.
 

Isator Levie

Registered User
Validated User
Houses aren't the same as factions among the students - it's the school outright imposing factions on them, together with a system designed to make those factions antagonistic - thus abolishing Houses isn't the same thing as abolishing factions altogether.
I suppose they're technically factions, but lack a lot of the meaningful details. They're not really intrinsically antagonistic so much as competitive.
 

Grumpygoat

Registered User
Validated User
I believe that Rowling actually stated that, with the exception of Voldemort's wizarding wars, most dark wizards actually come from Ravenclaw. It's just the wizarding wars we see in the books were based on pureblood ideology, which is mostly Slytherin's thing.
I suppose just how she's defining "dark wizard" makes this less or more of an oddity. Of course the House of artsy nerds who like knowing things are more likely to delve into forbidden knowledge. But as far as wizards most likely to do awful shit with their magic goes, the House that biases overwhelmingly toward "pureblood"/eugenics-slash-Nazi-wizards seems the likeliest contender under most circumstances, with Gryffindor following behind as is often the case with individuals convinced of their own righteousness.
 

Bremen

Member
RPGnet Member
Validated User
Linkage? Cuz that's the first I've heard of that.
I'm afraid all I can find is a post of someone saying they believe Rowling has said that, which is where I saw it. So they might be wrong, or else the statement is either not online or I don't know what words to use to google it.

I suppose just how she's defining "dark wizard" makes this less or more of an oddity. Of course the House of artsy nerds who like knowing things are more likely to delve into forbidden knowledge. But as far as wizards most likely to do awful shit with their magic goes, the House that biases overwhelmingly toward "pureblood"/eugenics-slash-Nazi-wizards seems the likeliest contender under most circumstances, with Gryffindor following behind as is often the case with individuals convinced of their own righteousness.
This is more or less what I assumed; that if historically Ravenclaw produced more dark wizards those are the ones who build a lab somewhere and experiment with forbidden magics out of sight while the Slytherin dark wizards try to conquer the world.
 
Last edited:

SuperG

Active member
Validated User
Why are we assuming any British Wizard before Voldemort even considered world conquest?

I mean, the Wizarding World is small. In the thousand years Hogwarts has existed, it's a kinda actually plausible that Voldemort's ambitions were unusual - eyeballing it, if he was a one-in-a-million exceptional combination of malice, power and ability... well, I think Hogwarts has had less than a million pupils since it was founded - if there's about three hundred pupils (4x75) in each year group from founding through to the end of the novels, that's, well, 0.3 million Hogwarts students ever.


I also think it's worth noting that, Voldemort aside, the ex-Hogwarts pupil who came closest to planning a coup was Dumbledore, and he was in Gryffindor.
 
Top Bottom