This makes no sense...

According to this link, Protego Diabolica is the spell Newt, Theseus, Tina, Yusuf and Flamel used when they placed themselves in a circle around Grindelwald's (fiendfyre?), and - yes, I know that in the movie, they said "Finite", but here's the thing: Protego Diabolica is supposed to create a circle of protective flames, that's what they did with Finite, the script describes it as a "purifying" fire that put an end to Grindelwald's cursed one by standing in a circle around Grindelwald's fire dragon things and creating fire by putting their wands down into the Earth. Yet - the etymology does not at all fit with Grindelwald's blue circle of flames, which was not a defensive spell by any stretch of the imagination. It was a combined test to ensure that only those truly loyal to him was sent off to Nurmengard, and otherwise used as a weapon to burn people to ash. So - what's what? Why are the description and supposed usage of Protego Diabolica so contradictory, and why does the usage of "Finite", which in the books simply makes the effect of a spell to cease without any flash and bangs, suddenly do exactly what Protego Diabolica is supposed to do? Maester Martin (talk) 16:27, November 20, 2018 (UTC)

Notice that the account you linked to is a Fan Account, what they say are thus not canon. Anyways, the way I understood it is that the blue fire that Grindelwald conjured was Protego Diabolica. "protecting the diabolic", basically it protects Grindelwald (diabolic part) from outsiders. And Finite is what Newt & co. used to counter the spell. Cheers, CosmicChronos Talk to me Contribs 16:52, November 20, 2018 (UTC)

Or, you know, "protection from the diabolic". Honestly, chief, fan account or nay, I would be quite interested to hear how this fan came to sit down and inform us about how the spell is attached to Newt. Are we certain that the whole "Finite" thing isn't a mistake that took place a day Rowling wasn't on set to correct Yates? Maester Martin (talk) 02:35, November 21, 2018 (UTC)

Says right there in the Twitter thread that their info comes from the Spellbinding Guide to the Films which came out in October. We can debate upon whether that means the book's editorial made a mistake or it simply gives a contradictory answer. We can note the contradiction in the Behind the Scenes, assuming we can confirm that what's said in the Twitter account is true. Does anyone have a copy of the book? --Kingsman28 (talk) 16:40, November 21, 2018 (UTC)

The facts of this spell.

Please can be people stop editing this article to state this spell produces blue fire; this is only so in the film, whereas the official script officially states that the flames produced are black. Written works by J.K. Rowling are the highest source of canon, even above film adaptations, so the facts in them need to be respected. In addition, whilst this spell seems to strongly resemble a curse due to its extremely destructive and malevolent impact, it is not formally referred to as one in the canon, yet. Thank you. RedWizard98 (talk) 22:06, March 14, 2019 (UTC)

It does not just "resemble a curse." J.K. Rowling officially defined curses as pieces of magic reserved for the "worst pieces of dark magic."(Source: I don't need to already tell anyone that Avada Kedavra is considered among THE worst curses among the wizarding world, and this spell has the capacity to kill. Every spell we've ever seen with a serious capacity to kill has been a curse, and obviously, this curse not only has the capacity to kill multiple people, but "diabolica" is in the incantation itself. Many times have things been confirmed on this wiki not by direct word of Rowling or the canon, but by a process of logical deduction. By your stance, this spell shouldn't even be allowed to be called a dark charm, because it hasn't been stated to be one. A curse on the other hand, has been shown countless times to have the capacity to kill where no other spell type has a similar power, and this one has the capacity to kill multiple people, and already has ample evidence of being a curse, through it's sole use by a notorious dark wizard, and its incantaiton. Therefore, by process of deduction, this spell is a curse. It does not have to be officially stated in order to be written on the wiki; only a logical process of deduction, and everything points to this spell being a curse.

Oerk (talk) 03:47, March 25, 2019 (UTC)

Whilst I do agree that it is most likely a curse, it still is not officially stated as one in canon (despite all the factors pointing to the fact that is most probably is one, due its extremely dark and destructive nature). I think I am going to ask an administrator to what their opinion is on the topic, because speculation is not something that should be avoided on this wikia. RedWizard98 (talk) 11:41, March 30, 2019 (UTC)

While I think that this is most likely a curse, we need confirmation, The spell on the DADA position also resulted in very bad effects , but is classified as a jinx. The possibility of it being a curse could be included in Behind the Scenes.--Rodolphus (talk) 12:58, March 30, 2019 (UTC)

Very much agreed. The definition of dark charms and spells are not always logical with what definitions would seem the most appropriate. I think to stop this speculation, I am sending this article to the broad category of dark magic, until we have some official confirmation on what this spell even is. If Pottermore or JK give us some more information about this evil spell, now would be magical indeed. Thanks for the input RedWizard98 (talk) 14:26, March 30, 2019 (UTC).

"Speculation" means without firm evidence. However, we have ample evidence, including the word of Rowling herself that curses are "reserved for the worst kinds of dark magic." Plenty of things have had small jumps in logic that only make sense. For example, many charms, while not expliticity called charms, meet Rowling's definition of a charm. It is a similar case with transfiguration spells. The bottom line is that everybody already knows this is a curse, and logical conclusions have been a staple for this wiki in so many articles already. Many articles with reasonable assumptions don't even have the boatloads of evidence that this curse has, including in the INCANTATION itself to add insult to injury. With the stance that you positively need confirmation that this is a curse, then it shouldn't even be listed as a dark charm, because that in itself is not explicity stated in any source. Oerk (talk) 14:14, March 30, 2019 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. I am simply leaving trying to argue what has already established according to wikia rules. No canon sources or references given, so hardly good or intelligent editing here in the slightest. Plain silly and childish RedWizard98 (talk) 14:26, March 30, 2019 (UTC). 

Rowling's definition is all we need. Nothing more. Oerk (talk) 14:36, March 30, 2019 (UTC)

But there are varying kinds of Dark spells that have the potential to kill but they do not get defined as a curse. For example, even a jinx is a kind of Dark spell that could have the potential to kill, but they were not officially defined as a curse. The actual term "curse" is reserved "for the worst pieces of dark magic", but only Rowling could tell us further at what point a spell would be called a curse. I wouldn't begin inferring things. - Kates39 (talk) 14:49, March 30, 2019 (UTC)

The difference is that this spell can serve as a multiple Avada Kedavra, and that is considered among THE worst curses among the wizarding world. Every spell we've ever seen with a SERIOUS capacity to kill has been a curse, and obviously, this curse not only has the capacity to kill multiple people, but "diabolica" (meaning devilish or evil) is in the incantation itself. In addition, Rowling defined jinxes as "amusing but irritating," hexes slightly above that, and curses as being "reserved for the worst kinds of dark magic." Oerk (talk) 14:52, March 30, 2019 (UTC)

Well, you can't win everything RedWizard98 (talk) 15:26, March 30, 2019 (UTC).

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.