Hogwarts Legacy

[Forum Explorer]

I don't believe that's actually true.

Remember the word carved on Lily and James Potter's tombstone: "The Last enemy to be destroyed is death." And indeed, Harry did overcome death and return from it in book 7.

I would argue that death is every bit as much the enemy in the Rowling verse as in the HPMOR universe. The difference is that in the Rowling-verse the deeper magic from before the dawn of time (to steal from CS Lewis) is love. The reason Harry is still alive in book 1 is because his mother's love was a more effective shield than any magic: Nothing can stop avada kedevra, and yet that's exactly what happened.

That is why someone like Dumbledore can lay down his life for the sake of others -- because he believes that death is not the end for him, and that his afterlife will be far better if goes out this way. Someone like Voldemort doesn't have this faith or this hope -- he sees death as .. well, hpmor spells it out very well. Chapter 39

I think I disagree with this. Death is not the enemy in Harry Potter, and indeed, the wisest characters and most of the good characters embrace death when it is their time. The story goes out of its way to say souls exist, and so does the afterlife. To quote a different fantasy series 'death is just the next step on their journey'. Meanwhile most forms of immortality in the books are looked down upon or seen as evil. Drinking unicorn blood makes you monstrous, Horcruxes are horrifying, becoming a ghost is described as 'a feeble imitation of life' and described as inferior to just moving on. The only exception seems to be the Philospher's Stone which is destroyed without regrets as Dumbledore describes death as just the next adventure.

While Voldemort is literally named 'fear of death'. That is the driving force of evil in the books. Fear of death. And it isn't a coincidence that Harry is in the House of the Brave.

[Mordokai]

I think Harry Potter gets a special level of disdain from the trans community--or at least the Millennial trans community-- because they feel betrayed. When they were young and weird and didn't fit with how things were "supposed" to be...then yeah, a story about an out-of-place-orphan-turned-chosen-one is easy (and socially acceptable) to embrace, even to make a part of their identity. And then Rowling turns around and starts insulting them and saying that their existence is invalid, if not predatory.

I'd be angry too.

So if the vitriol associated with this game seems excessive... just remember that some of it is being fueled by feelings of deep betrayal.

Yeah, I've seen/read enough to conclude you're probably right. I cannot possibly imagine what they have been through, since I've never had these kinds of problems and HP was never more to me than a fun way to pass time. I've never had any emotional stake in the books, other than the story itself.

I'm not saying having these feelings is wrong, or anything like that. Far from it. I think it's an understandable reaction. But I do believe the visceral, knee-jerk reaction that has been had in response to HL was detrimental to the cause.

[warty goblin]

Also Harry doesn't survive because he was willing to die, but because of Voldemort's efforts to be all powerful and cheat death. HP isn't Narnia, being willing to die for someone else doesn't result in coming back to life (otherwise Lily wouldn't be dead). Rather, self sacrifice protects others, as does the Invisibility Cloak, both the least of the Hallows and the greatest. The other two, the two that most directly let you impose your will on death, either through murder or false resurrection, don't work. The Elder Wand gets you killed, the Resurrection Stone drives you mad.

[The Glyphstone]

I seem to recall having some trans friends who were very specifically angered/betrayed by the death of Tonks, I guess because her ability to change her own body was something to connect to? It's fuzzy and a very long time ago.

[warty goblin]

I seem to recall having some trans friends who were very specifically angered/betrayed by the death of Tonks, I guess because her ability to change her own body was something to connect to? It's fuzzy and a very long time ago.

I seem to remember a lot of people getting really angry that various side characters died at the end, because apparently it's bad writing to have people die during a giant battle. The late stages of Harry Potter fandom were weird.

[The Glyphstone]

Except for Fred. Or was it George? That just got a lot of jokes about how you could finally tell the Weasley twins apart.

[Saintheart]

Also Harry doesn't survive because he was willing to die, but because of Voldemort's efforts to be all powerful and cheat death. HP isn't Narnia, being willing to die for someone else doesn't result in coming back to life (otherwise Lily wouldn't be dead). Rather, self sacrifice protects others, as does the Invisibility Cloak, both the least of the Hallows and the greatest. The other two, the two that most directly let you impose your will on death, either through murder or false resurrection, don't work. The Elder Wand gets you killed, the Resurrection Stone drives you mad.

If I may, that story seems to be more about acceptance of death. The first brother thinks he's overcome Death by force of his own abilities, and is undone by boasting about it. The second brother thinks he's overcome Death by bringing back and hanging onto that which he values most, i.e. his girl who died years ago. He's undone by getting exactly what he wants. The third brother seeks avoidance of Death, thus the invisibility cloak which means Death can't find him. He has a full and good life, including producing and raising sons to follow him, and gives up life on his own terms. He quite literally makes friends with Death.

[Rynjin]

I haven't read HPMOR, so I don't know how this excerpt fits into the greater narrative. But taken by itself, it very much reads as "Voldemort is evil because he's an atheist." Unfortunately, forum rules prevent me from going deeper into this, but it is almost as problematic as JKR's views.

It actually reads as "Voldemort is evil because he's not a Rationalist (buy my philosophy book on sale now!)".

HPMOR is just a big advertisement for Yudkowsky's other big hustle, it exists only to shill his philosophy.

[pendell]

You're right that love overcomes all is an important theme in HP, but everything else about this take seems fundamentally wrong to me. That said, I already laid out my arguments, and you ignored them, so I guess there's nothing more to discuss.

You mean this one, or did you have another?

No, the most notorious HP hate-fic (unsurprisingly) completely misread one of the most important themes, because the author doesn't agree with it. If anything, he got it exactly backwards. It's not about a struggle against death, it's about accepting death. Voldemort's entire character is built around his fear of death, his refusal to accept his own death. That's what makes him the bad guy. Harry has the opportunity to become "the master of death", but turns it down, because one of the things he had to do to get to this point was to accept his own death. That's one of the reasons he's the good guy.

More (less prominent) examples: Ignotus Peverell accepts his own death, giving the Deathly Hallows story its happy ending. Dumbledore accepts his death and incorporates it into his plans. Nicolas Flamel accepts his death in order to prevent the Philosopher's Stone from being misused.

Sorry, not trying to ignore you. Just missed it. But I think here's the key point I'm going to put in italics:

"Voldemort's entire character is built around his fear of death, his refusal to accept his own death."

We talk about "accepting death" -- but in fact each of these characters is rejecting death for someone else. These aren't the prequel-era jedi who will simply let someone die if it is their time -- "mourn them do not, miss them do not", as Yoda said. On the contrary, Dumbledore and the Potters are fighting with all their strength against death , so much so they're willing to lay down their own lives to save those they love. While Lily willingly gave her life, she didn't do it because she liked dying or because she was accepting of her fate, but because she was desperate to save someone else. She's the kind of person who, trapped on a sinking ship and seeing only one seat left in a lifeboat, would put her own son on and go down herself. Contrast that with Voldemort, who would happily massacre everyone else in the boat, including those who counted on him the most, if he could save his own life.

Another word for "death" is "fate". And every one of the characters you mention don't go to their death accepting fate -- they are actively struggling against death with all their strength, but for someone else's sake rather than their own. Like soldiers charging a beach to protect the people they love back home.

Also, I remind you that the words Lily and James had carved on their tombstone is one giant middle finger to death. The difference is they're willing to accept it and trust that there is justice in the world which will make this wrong right. Voldemort doesn't have that trust, so rather than rely on any inherent rightness in the world he clings to life through horcruxes -- through cruelty and injustice to others , a predator living on other wizards as prey. All of these wizards are fighting against death, but not as an abstraction. Voldemort kills others to save himself. Lily and Dumbledore are his opposite, sacrificing their own lives to save other people.

Heck, if I remember correctly when Dumbledore is killed he and Snape are trying to save Draco Malfoy, who is no one's idea of a terrific person who makes the world a better place. In this, Dumbledore's sacrifice for Draco exactly mirrors Aslan's sacrifice for Edmund, who was a liar and a traitor at the time.

There's an irony in that Voldemort sought by every means possible to save his life, but still lost it in the end. By contrast, those who willingly give up their lives for the sake of others keep ... something. Dumbledore shows up at the afterworld train station, as I recall, and for a dead man he looks remarkably well. Certainly better than Voldemort did in the same circumstances.

So it looks to me as if the approach of Dumbledore is a kind of trifecta -- first, to hate death for those you care about. Second, to accept it for themselves as the necessary price of protecting someone else. Finally, to overcome death by being accepted into ... whatever it is Dumbledore is in when he shows up at the train station. To trust in that pesky Deeper Magic, that "justice at the core of the world" in the words of HPMOR-Dumbledore, to make things right for those who live in love and die in hope. It seems paradoxical but it isn't -- accepting death is part and parcel of the process of overcoming it, in the Potterverse. But just because you accept it doesn't mean it's not an enemy -- but the last enemy to be destroyed. The words on that tombstone are not idle -- to the elder Potters, death IS an enemy, not a friend, and WILL be destroyed -- but at some future point, not in their lifetimes. It's the last enemy, one that must be tolerated for a season, but still an enemy.

If Rowling didn't go over these themes as closely as Lewis did, it's because she is, in this respect , a better writer, since these themes are relatively subtle in the books rather than dropping allegorical anvils. If the Chronicles of Narnia are pancakes and allegory is syrup, you're looking at a lake of maple with a few small patties somewhere in the middle.

As for Ignotus Peverell, he created a device that allowed him to hide from death and thereby greatly extended his own life. That's .. not exactly the same thing as accepting death. If you accept something, you neither run, hide, nor fight it. You just give over to it. Still, Ignotus seems to believe this approach was preferable to being unbeatable in wizard combat or dragging the memories of the dead back from wherever they are. It's as much victory over death as a person can have in this life -- a long life and a happy one. But that's still not the same thing as accepting it calmly.

If there are Pratchett fans here, it reminds me of the Rincewind approach to adversity, which is that when danger comes calling, Rincewind will run away .


Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Dragonus45]

I haven't read HPMOR, so I don't know how this excerpt fits into the greater narrative. But taken by itself, it very much reads as "Voldemort is evil because he's an atheist." Unfortunately, forum rules prevent me from going deeper into this, but it is almost as problematic as JKR's views.

I mean HPMOR isn't exactly great writing on it's own and it took forever to end so I wouldn't be surprised if the greater narrative got confused as heck, I finished it out of spite but it's been 7 years and it's not the kind of thing I would ever want to reread. I can say for certain is that that would never come up as a main theme for the story.

[Kish]

{scrubbed}

Discussing whether she's right would fly in the face of the comment policy here, and discussing whether HPMOR correctly paraphrases Voldemort's views, or whether HPMOR's Dumbledore correctly summarizes her intended reason for those views, is on extremely shaky ground. I will say, hopefully at enough of a remove from the direct subject to be safe, that Rowling meant "Voldemort fears death and will do anything to avoid it" as a great negative and the HPMOR author's ability to accurately describe any part of her philosophy was hobbled by believing with all his heart that that was the only proper attitude toward death.

(Nor is it as simple as "death for other people is bad"; Dumbledore expresses beaming approval of Nicholas Flamel's decision that he and his wife will die at the end of Philosopher's Stone, saying "To the well-organized mind, death is but the next great adventure.")

Rowling's writing indicates the three beliefs, which I will state without editorializing because of the comment policy:

1) Killing a human is super bad, harder to justify than torture or mind control, both of which Harry does and are presented as permissable or laudable.
2) Prolonging your own or someone else's life is permissable or laudable depending on the circumstances.
3) Trying to actually live forever is bad.

[Rynjin]

Rowling meant "Voldemort fears death and will do anything to avoid it" as a great negative and the HPMOR author's ability to accurately describe any part of her philosophy was hobbled by believing with all his heart that that was the only proper attitude toward death.

This is pretty much what I was trying to get at before. Yudkowsky wholeheartedly believes that Voldemort is correct, even if his methods are wrong. That meant he had to utterly change the character just to make his own plot work.

HPMOR, as the title implies, is just a Rationalist manifesto. Everything in the story, from the abject CONTEMPT it has for Ron (even more than the movies in that regard) to its ultimate handling of the final conflict is born from the desire to editorialize his philosophy in a "hip and cool way the kids will understand".

[Dragonus45]

This is pretty much what I was trying to get at before. Yudkowsky wholeheartedly believes that Voldemort is correct, even if his methods are wrong. That meant he had to utterly change the character just to make his own plot work.

HPMOR, as the title implies, is just a Rationalist manifesto. Everything in the story, from the abject CONTEMPT it has for Ron (even more than the movies in that regard) to its ultimate handling of the final conflict is born from the desire to editorialize his philosophy in a "hip and cool way the kids will understand".

I will say that while they come to different end points for what the correct answer to the question of death is both stories at least agree that death itself is the great final enemy and driving force behind the plots. I would say that if it weren't actually impossible to do so in the proper Harry Potter world then ethical immortality would probably be the correct long term goal as well. It's hard to compare past those points though because Eliezer decided to actively rewrite the very core rules of the universe itself when he decided to vandalize it to make his fan fiction of it.

[pendell]

I'm actually closer to Rowling's outlook than Eliezer's, but she and Tolkien both have this idea of death as something to be welcomed or, at least, accepted. We read through the Silmarillion not that long ago, and the fear of death which the Numenoreans possessed was the seed of poison that eventually resulted first in their degeneration into a human-sacrificing Morgoth cult and then in the annihilation of the culture from the face of Middle-Earth -- all except a tiny band of refugees who founded Gondor and Arnor.

The thing is, in both those cases, we can't look at death as a thing in and of itself but as a part of the system which includes the Valar and Illuvatar. The Valar do not council men to simply roll over for death, but to wait in hope -- "the desire for this world was planted in your hearts by Illuvatar, and he does not plant to no purpose. Hope rather that in the end the least of your desires will bear fruit, lest the trust to which you are called again become a bond by which you are constrained."

In other words, the Numenoreans are supposed to regard death as a temporary state, after which the choirs of the world will sing and the world will be made both anew and aright; to accept death with a mixture of both faith in the Valar and a hope for the future, even when all seems lost.

The reason they can do this is because they cannot regard death as annihilation; the permanent cessation of thought, of feeling, of emotion, of self. If they did regard it this way, well, that's precisely what Sauron led them to: Worship of Morgoth as the lord of the dark to protect them from it, and it probably helped motivate the Nazgul as well.

I can understand the need to regard death with a degree of resignation and hope but the acceptance of death as a thing good in and of itself -- as opposed to "the last enemy" -- well, it seems peculiarly British. That is, British authors talk that way but American authors don't. American authors of the same philosophical bent as Rowling and Tolkien tend to go along with Yudkowski, an American himself, in Chapter 39 .

If people were hit on the heads with truncheons once a month, and no one could do anything about it, pretty soon there'd be all sorts of philosophers, pretending to be wise as you put it, who found all sorts of amazing benefits to being hit on the head with a truncheon once a month. Like, it makes you tougher, or it makes you happier on the days when you're not getting hit with a truncheon. But if you went up to someone who wasn't getting hit, and you asked them if they wanted to start, in exchange for those amazing benefits, they'd say no.

Frankly, I find his perspective refreshing and clarifying compared to this muddled idea of "oooh, death is a good thing". Speaking as someone who buried a pet yesterday what a tremendous load of hogwash. Maybe death is something we have to suffer through and maybe we have to go through it and wait patiently for something better there is absolutely no way I'm ever going to call it a good thing, even in fictional universes like OOTsverse where it's a revolving door for adventurers.

*picks up a metaphorical crowbar in his strong hand, tapping it thoughtfully in his other*.

When death finally comes for me I will not be greeting him as an old friend. And if I can't win, I'm going to do my best to make him remember what happens next. Morgoth killed Fingolfin, after all, but Fingolfin still stabbed seven kinds of stuffing out of him on the way.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Rynjin]

Thing is, very few people actually believe death is a good thing in and of itself. Nobody is arguing that, and setting it up as a real argument is purely a strawman.

Accepting death as an inevitability that one must face with dignity is not the same as viewing it as something to be welcomed with open arms.

[pendell]

Thing is, very few people actually believe death is a good thing in and of itself. Nobody is arguing that, and setting it up as a real argument is purely a strawman.

Accepting death as an inevitability that one must face with dignity is not the same as viewing it as something to be welcomed with open arms.

Hey it's Tolkien who's calling it, without irony, "the gift of men". And my response to him is: "I hope you kept the receipt."

Tongue-in-cheek,

Brian P.

[Forum Explorer]

*Snipped*

Living is exhausting. Living is depressing. Living is painful. For a lot of people death comes not as a terrible monster taking you away from everything you love, but as a relief from the suffering you've been enduring. Growing old is brutal. You ache all over, you can barely move, your senses are dull, and it can be physically hard to think. You can't do much more than just watch the world go by. And that's an inevitability. If you are lucky and privileged you can avoid most of the suffering of life. You won't be crippled by injury or disease. You won't go hungry. You won't get beaten or just have to deal with constant failure. You will still have to deal with the pain of losing loved ones, and you'll still grow old. That you can't dodge no matter what.

So death is a mercy. You finally get to stop suffering. And for those who believe in life after death, you've got a lot to look forward to, be it a paradise with all your loved ones or just a new life, whatever your beliefs may be.

Immortality sounds nice, but only if it is paired with agelessness thank you very much. Otherwise you are just signing up for an eternity of torture.

Which, to bring this back to Harry Potter, is exactly what Voldemort did. Drinking unicorn blood curses you to a wretched existence, while being a wraith is a horrible life where you mostly can't effect the world. And it took a lot to resurrect him. It took multiple fanatics working together to pull it off and it still needed a fair bit of luck to succeed. And in return he becomes a freakish monster of a man who is unstable in every sense of the word. And it is revealed that he's poisoned his afterlife, whatever he was going to get, he instead is going to exist as a flayed baby, an existence of both helplessness and agony for the rest of eternity.

[Sapphire Guard]

Harry's attitude is not universal, even in the wizarding world. And the 1800s almost certainly have a different mindset. If there is a wider war against goblins happening, maybe they loosened restrictions.

The thing about the Unforgiveables is, they come with an automatic life sentence in Azkaban (my assumption being because they come with built in mens rea, you can't use them unless you mean to, so criminal intent is automatic, whereas for most other things you can claim mind control). Maybe that's not true in the 1800s but they have been unforgiveable since 1715.

Even your average dark wizard isn't going to use those casually, because they come with hard time. Only someone like Voldemort, who has nothing to lose because he's already looking at everything the Ministry can throw at him if they ever succeed in bringing him down, should use em casually.

The thing on the tomb is a bible quote, so what it means is probably in that context. Whoever carved the tombstone did it, it isn't a family motto or anything.

It's just a gameplay deal so you can be a dark wizard if you like.

I can understand the need to regard death with a degree of resignation and hope but the acceptance of death as a thing good in and of itself -- as opposed to "the last enemy" -- well, it seems peculiarly British. That is, British authors talk that way but American authors don't. American authors of the same philosophical bent as Rowling and Tolkien tend to go along with Yudkowski, an American himself, in Chapter 39 .

I think you may be misunderstanding. Leaving aside that no national literary tradition is a monolith, the whole 'stiff upper lip' thing is not about looking forward to death as a good thing, but that it's inevitable and flailing, panicking, or screaming into the void is at a minimum not helpful and may be detrimental to either yourself or other people.

I think Harry Potter gets a special level of disdain from the trans community--or at least the Millennial trans community-- because they feel betrayed. When they were young and weird and didn't fit with how things were "supposed" to be...then yeah, a story about an out-of-place-orphan-turned-chosen-one is easy (and socially acceptable) to embrace, even to make a part of their identity.

While that is true, if you identify heavily with a work of fiction, that does not mean you have been betrayed if they do not affirm that. It is deeply unfortunate that this happened for those that feel betrayed, given their circumstances, but 'I love and am deeply invested in X, therefore I have the right to control X and anything that diverges from that is betrayal' is abusive behaviour.

[Rynjin]

Death of the author was made for circumstances like this. If somebody wants to read a trans positive message into Harry Potter and take comfort from that, they should. Regardless of what the author says to the contrary.

I used to think Ender's Game was a very gay positive story. I still choose to believe that, even if the author wouldn't so much as piss on a gay person if they were on fire.

[warty goblin]

While that is true, if you identify heavily with a work of fiction, that does not mean you have been betrayed if they do not affirm that. It is deeply unfortunate that this happened for those that feel betrayed, given their circumstances, but 'I love and am deeply invested in X, therefore I have the right to control X and anything that diverges from that is betrayal' is abusive behaviour.

Abusive behavior is much stronger language than I'd use, though it certainly can lead to fans doing abusive things like death threats and so on. Rather it's part of the weird sense of fan ownership that fandoms seem to spawn. I've always found this a bit baffling; I'm not sure anybody owns a story - outside of a very literal legal sense not really even the author - and certainly not a community who likes it very much. They can be emotionally invested in it, and that's great, but any number of communities can be that, often for very different reasons. I'd rather not try to parse which fans 'own' something and which don't. Normally we'd call that gatekeeping.

[Dragonus45]

Death of the author was made for circumstances like this. If somebody wants to read a trans positive message into Harry Potter and take comfort from that, they should. Regardless of what the author says to the contrary.

I used to think Ender's Game was a very gay positive story. I still choose to believe that, even if the author wouldn't so much as piss on a gay person if they were on fire.

Same about Ender's Game, I still feel betrayed there. It's hard to separate the two things in situations like this one though where they are very much alive and on twitter.

[Rynjin]

Orson Scott Card is also both of those things but he's surprisingly better at keeping his mouth shut for someone whose literature over the past ~15 years have basically been nothing but religious and political manifestos.

[Callos_DeTerran]

Thing is, very few people actually believe death is a good thing in and of itself. Nobody is arguing that, and setting it up as a real argument is purely a strawman.

Accepting death as an inevitability that one must face with dignity is not the same as viewing it as something to be welcomed with open arms.

Not to get too philosophical, but I do view death as a good thing. Its not something to rush towards, mind, but death gives important context to life. It gives it meaning and purpose in my opinion. It is still sad to lose someone or some pet, but that's still my thought on the matter. Much like pain can be used to learn and makes happiness all the more poignant, death is the same for life as a whole.

[warty goblin]

Made it to the first Trial. That's a pretty excellent magical Tomb Raider tomb there.

I have been consistently impressed with the puzzle design in this. They aren't hard necessarily, but they do require reasonably close observation, and a certain degree of thought and deduction on the part of player. On a number of occasions I've thought I needed a spell I don't have, only to realize I wasn't thinking about the problem correctly. Decidedly above average for this sort of thing I'd say.

[Taevyr]

I used to think Ender's Game was a very gay positive story. I still choose to believe that, even if the author wouldn't so much as piss on a gay person if they were on fire.

Probably the best example of "Death of the Author" out there concerning subtext. It boggles my mind that he accidentally made it so gay positive, particularly since most people I know that read it see the exact same subtext he'd probably hope to avoid like the plague.

Hell, in the case of someone like Lovecraft, you could make the argument that his boundless racism, even for the early 20th century, was probably part of the reason he wrote such good "fear of the unknown/other" horror stories. Doesn't excuse it in any way, nor would I say said racism taints (most of) his stories (some of'em become rather iffy knowing it), but it's interesting to consider.

[Rater202]

In Lovecraft's case if you look at his stories in production order you can see that his attitudes towards other races sort of soften over time, and he also seemed to have some awareness that his fear of other peoples and cultures was irrational.

And to my knowledge in his case, it was in fact mostly fear, rather than hatred.

[Peelee]

The Mod on the Silver Mountain: Closed for review.

[Peelee]

The Mod on the Silver Mountain: Thread re-opened.

[pendell]

So I see this thread has re-opened. it's only tangentially related but I saw this facebook video (7 minutes six seconds) spoof Hogwarts does online learning in 2020.

...

I guess it's a sign of age that I strongly identify with this portrayal of Snape, constantly sighing and eyerolling as he tries to keep the class focused on the material for longer than three minutes at a go, while trying not to sink too deeply into a Tequila Sunrise which is his own coping mechanism for Zoom class.

As someone who spends 1.5-2 hours a day in Zoom, I so identify.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Jophiel]

Made it to the first Trial. That's a pretty excellent magical Tomb Raider tomb there.

I have been consistently impressed with the puzzle design in this. They aren't hard necessarily, but they do require reasonably close observation, and a certain degree of thought and deduction on the part of player. On a number of occasions I've thought I needed a spell I don't have, only to realize I wasn't thinking about the problem correctly. Decidedly above average for this sort of thing I'd say.

My gripe is that the rewards don't necessarily reflect the effort. More specifically, there's a dungeon/trial where the first series you get some unique cosmetics and fulfill a friend side quest. But the second series is way more complicated and just gives you the same chests you could get by committing breaking & entry in the towns. I looked up the walkthrough and then just bailed when I saw how much there was to do just to get some red arrow gear or an Infernio rank one charm

I was fine with the puzzles for the plot trials, though.