Communicating by Patronus, and dark vs. white magic

[oiboyz]

No: HPFGUIDX 137711

>  Carol:
>Or can a
> Patronus speak? Also, it seems to be sent to a *place* rather than a
> person. Otherwise, Snape could not have read a message intended for
> Hagrid. And if a Patronus is white magic (as JKR confirms that it is),
> would it have delivered the message to him if he weren't genuinely on
> the side of the Order?

I'm guessing the Patronus does speak; that seems to be the most
straightforward way.  But who knows?  I doubt the Patronus would have
to be sent to a place rather than a person.  My guess is that they
have logic and knowledge of their own, so when Tonks' Patronus was
unable to deliver its message to Hagrid, it did the next best thing
and gave the message to the nearest Order member instead.  I know
that's quite complex for a spell, but the Patronus is pretty darn
lifelike.  Perhaps that scene shows us the capabilities *and* the
limits of a Patronus.  It's intelligent enough to complete its
mission, but not aware enough to spare Tonks some embarassment by
avoiding Snape.  Maybe that's just too obscure a concern for a
Patronus to deal with.

I'd like to get to the bottom of this whole "Patronus = white magic"
idea.  The only JKR quote I know of that deals with this is her
statement that "it is an anti-Dark Arts device, which makes it highly
resilient to interference from Dark wizards."  I don't think this
precludes a Dark wizard from being able to cast his own Patronus. 
Indeed, Dark wizards need anti-Dark Arts devices even more than good
wizards do, seeing as they keep more dangerous company.  They'd be in
trouble if they became incapable of casting certain spells just
because they're turning evil.  The Dark Mark alone won't protect you
from Dementors, for example.  I suspect that any person can cast a
Patronus, and that Patronus would then defend its caster, good or evil.

There's a tendency to put spells and wizards in very clear
metaphysical categories-- good or bad, Dark Arts or white magic.  But
I'm not sure there are any quotes in canon or JKR's interviews that
support the idea that the categories are really so distinct and
incompatible.  However, that doesn't mean it can't be true, and there
may well be data I'm not aware of, so I'd welcome opposing views.

As for me, I doubt there are any spells or people who are so
inherently Evil that they become incompatible with Good.  (One
possible exception is Voldemort, who has actually gone and split his
soul-- maybe *he* wouldn't be able to cast a Patronus.)  Even the
Unforgivable Curses are performed by good wizards-- think of Harry,
the pure-souled power-of-Love boy himself, throwing the Cruciatus
Curse.  His first attempt on Bellatrix wasn't too effective, but I bet
the Cruciatus he cast at Snape at the end of HBP would have been much
more painful if Snape hadn't blocked it.

I won't be disturbed if Harry kills Voldemort with Aveda Kedavra.  I
tend to look at spells as mere tools that can be used for good or
evil.  Aveda Kedavra is usually used for evil purpose, but killing
Voldemort would be a very good and necessary thing.  However, JKR
seems to be setting us up for something different, something involving
Love rather than AK.  Harry stopped Sirius and Remus from becoming
killers; I suspect JKR won't want Harry to become a killer either--
but then how is he going to off Voldemort?

   -oiboyz, who can't wait to see how this will all play out.