![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Wizard's Duels and the Use of Seconds...
Aug. 13th, 2004 12:31 pm°
I've been pondering that seconds-business for a bit for a very vague plot bunny, but always ran into problems.
According to Ron in PS, a second is there to 'take over' when one duel participant is killed (or, I suspect, incapacitated).
But: if the second takes over, wouldn't the original opponent in fact be expected to defeat *two* wizards, one after the other?
Let me illustrate with that hypothetical never-having-taken-place duel between Harry and Draco in PS:
Harry takes down Draco. Crabbe takes over. Now either Harry takes out Crabbe too, which would mean victory, I guess. If Crabbe takes out Harry, we have a tie - probably means Ron takes over for Harry. Now, either Crabbe or Ron wins, problem solved.
But: that would mean if you challenge a wizard to a duel, you either have to be prepared to take out *both* the opponent and his/her second (which would be a kind of unfair two-against-one match), or you've got a suicidal impulse and pick out the strongest second you can, hoping he'll be able to win where you couldn't. Either way, it would be the seconds who ultimately determine the outcome - out of four participants, only one would be left standing.
Does my logic fail me in this, or is there really a problem?
Or could the seconds' 'taking over' mean organising the funeral for their 'firsts' after their defeat? ;) Or supervise the proceedings/guard against unlawful activities (but then, why would Draco, in that scene, size up his goons before picking a second if that second wasn't supposed to be actively involved in the battle?)?
Any ideas, anyone?
I've been pondering that seconds-business for a bit for a very vague plot bunny, but always ran into problems.
According to Ron in PS, a second is there to 'take over' when one duel participant is killed (or, I suspect, incapacitated).
But: if the second takes over, wouldn't the original opponent in fact be expected to defeat *two* wizards, one after the other?
Let me illustrate with that hypothetical never-having-taken-place duel between Harry and Draco in PS:
Harry takes down Draco. Crabbe takes over. Now either Harry takes out Crabbe too, which would mean victory, I guess. If Crabbe takes out Harry, we have a tie - probably means Ron takes over for Harry. Now, either Crabbe or Ron wins, problem solved.
But: that would mean if you challenge a wizard to a duel, you either have to be prepared to take out *both* the opponent and his/her second (which would be a kind of unfair two-against-one match), or you've got a suicidal impulse and pick out the strongest second you can, hoping he'll be able to win where you couldn't. Either way, it would be the seconds who ultimately determine the outcome - out of four participants, only one would be left standing.
Does my logic fail me in this, or is there really a problem?
Or could the seconds' 'taking over' mean organising the funeral for their 'firsts' after their defeat? ;) Or supervise the proceedings/guard against unlawful activities (but then, why would Draco, in that scene, size up his goons before picking a second if that second wasn't supposed to be actively involved in the battle?)?
Any ideas, anyone?
