The Sword of Gryffindor - The Ultimate Horcrux

[OldMotherCrow]

Originally Posted by Goddess_Clio

Unless you have the Resurrection Stone. :wink: Okay, not really...

I agree, my point being that the statement "beyond repair" imples that the object be destroyed in some way, as in physically altered as with the diary having a fang piece it, the stone is cracked, the locket is smashed open, the cup... I don't know, is also pierced by a fang, Nagini has her head cut off, the diadem presumably is melted by the fiendfyre... AK doesn't seem to "alter" a person other than to cause them to die. The bodies are in no way physically harmed by the curse itself which is where calling destroying a horcurx "beyond repair" using AK is kind of strange based on the understanding of how other horcruxes have been destroyed "beyond repair."

Well, not only does the body cease to function, but decomposition will set in rapidly. Since the AK in the forest caused Harry to stop being Horcrux-like, it at least worked in that case. It's a good question about whether it would work with a "normal" living creature Horcrux, like Nagini. I tend to think yes, since once Nagini dies her body will not only cease immediately functioning (be beyond repair), but will also degrade because life no longer keeps it fom deteriorating. I think the AK does alter the body by making it die-- note that removing a soul doesn't always result in death of the body, for example the bodies of people who have had their souls sucked out by dementors continue to function.

[Goddess_Clio]

Originally Posted by OldMotherCrow

Well, not only does the body cease to function, but decomposition will set in rapidly. Since the AK in the forest caused Harry to stop being Horcrux-like, it at least worked in that case. It's a good question about whether it would work with a "normal" living creature Horcrux, like Nagini. I tend to think yes, since once Nagini dies her body will not only cease immediately functioning (be beyond repair), but will also degrade because life no longer keeps it fom deteriorating. I think the AK does alter the body by making it die-- note that removing a soul doesn't always result in death of the body, for example the bodies of people who have had their souls sucked out by dementors continue to function.

Fair point about decomposition Let me rescind that thumbs up, but I still give you props for making agood point.

I also agree about your point in regards to the soul being removed but the body remaining alive but I'm not really arguing that point, that's canonical fact. My question, more specifically, is if a person who is also a horcrux is AK'd, given the medical world's ability to resucitate seemingly lifeless bodies shortly after their death, could an AK'd person be resucitated given that their body is seemingly unharmed in any way? Even if the person is kept alive by machines and never regains consciousness, would that be enough to maintain the vessel so that the horcrux inside is not destroyed? If decomposition is what puts a body "beyond magical repair" than would paramedics arriving before the body could decompose, even seconds after the person is struck with AK, be able to revive a heart beat?

Obviously, not having the benefits of, say, an autopsy report we can't say for certain whether there are physcial alterations (internal, externally or even chemically) to the bodies of victims of AK but the town of Little Hangleton was in an uproar because the entire Riddle family, parents and son, seemed to die suddenly, inexplicably, all at the same time and apparently without a mark on them. If we assume, say, that AK interrupts the electrical impulses that cause the heart to beat, couldn't the heart be shocked by defibrillator paddles and be made to beat again? Does AK act like a magical egg beater and scramble the brain so the person dies? But organs like the heart are involuntary muscles that don't receive signals from the brain to continue pumping so scrambling the brain would garauntee brain death but not necessarily body death. And if we're saying that removal of the soul does not garauntee body death, either, than what, actually, does the AK spell do to kill a person?

Hmm... need to do a search for a "How does the Avada Kedavra curse work" thread.

[OldMotherCrow]

Originally Posted by Goddess_Clio

Let me rescind that thumbs up

I also agree about your point in regards to the soul being removed but the body remaining alive but I'm not really arguing that point, that's canonical fact. My question, more specifically, is if a person who is also a horcrux is AK'd, given the medical world's ability to resucitate seemingly lifeless bodies shortly after their death, could an AK'd person be resucitated given that their body is seemingly unharmed in any way? Even if the person is kept alive by machines and never regains consciousness, would that be enough to maintain the vessel so that the horcrux inside is not destroyed? If decomposition is what puts a body "beyond magical repair" than would paramedics arriving before the body could decompose, even seconds after the person is struck with AK, be able to revive a heart beat?

Good questions. I only have guesses to offer. Harry died in the forest, and that was enough to remove the Voldy soul-bit from him even though Harry did return to life moments later. So, perhaps if someone was a Horcrux and became clinically dead that counts as destruction, and if they were resuscitated they get to live on Horcux free. But then it was also said that they needed to be destroyed beyond magical repair. So does that count? Magic can't bring someone back from the dead, but resuscitation can within a very narrow window. And the situation with Harry was so rare, it was beyond normal magic.

I don't think it would be possible to resuscitate an AK victim, though. I think it does more than just stop the heart. I think the victim is just dead from that point on.

Okay, turns out I don't even have much in the way of guesses, really.

[Goddess_Clio]

Originally Posted by OldMotherCrow

That thumbs up just looked odd once I did it

But then it was also said that they needed to be destroyed beyond magical repair.

But not beyond muggle repair...

I don't think it would be possible to resuscitate an AK victim, though. I think it does more than just stop the heart. I think the victim is just dead from that point on.[/quote]

Yeah, maybe... I'd still like to know how AK works, though.

[MrSleepyHead]

Originally Posted by Goddess_Clio

Hmm... need to do a search for a "How does the Avada Kedavra curse work" thread.

Here it is: The Avada Kedavra.

Though off topic, my quick thoughts on this subject is that using Avada Kedavra or killing the person/living organism that acted as a Horcrux (e.g. Harry and nagini) would work to destroy the Horcrux. As OldMotherCrow says, a Horcrux container must be put beyond magical repair, and I think permanently destroying the life in the container would count as beyond magical repair in Horcrux terms - though Harry's example is certainly a convolution of normality.

Back on the topic of Gryffindor's sword:

Originally Posted by JohanT

As we are discussing the sword, I would agree that fiendfyre would be the ideal choice, as the sword is goblin-made, as is the diadem, I believe.

There is no evidence that the diadem was goblin-made. We know that Muriel's tiara was, but the diadem was described as "tarnished," which we know should not happen to goblin-made metals. Thus, I do not think that comparison can be made.

I like Peakes' original idea behind the sword's invincibility, but I think it is a stretch to assume that it could not be destroyed by something like Fiendfyre. While goblin-made metals imbibe that which makes them stronger, I think there would be ways of rendering the metal beyond magical repair that excludes any substance that the sword could imbibe. We seem to be assuming that the only ways of destroying Horcruxes are basilisk venom, Fiendfyre, and possibly Avada Kedavra. But how do we know more methods do not exist? Hermione only mentions basilisk venom, but at the end of the book we are surprised with another method. So I think there could easily be other ways of destroying a Horcrux, especially by goblins with goblin-made materials.

[JohanT]

Originally Posted by MrSleepyHead

Here it is: The Avada Kedavra.

Though off topic, my quick thoughts on this subject is that using Avada Kedavra or killing the person/living organism that acted as a Horcrux (e.g. Harry and nagini) would work to destroy the Horcrux. As OldMotherCrow says, a Horcrux container must be put beyond magical repair, and I think permanently destroying the life in the container would count as beyond magical repair in Horcrux terms - though Harry's example is certainly a convolution of normality.

Though I would agree with OldMotherCrow, and with what you have presented, I don't know if I'd completely rule out the possibility of Avada Kedavra not being among the methods effective for the destruction of horcruxes. In my opinion, the Avada Kedavra is a curse that removes the soul and the life from a body. Yet a horcrux could, from a certain perspective, contain both. I wonder if it is implausible to assume that the horcrux could potentially take over the body? As is the case with Tom Riddle's diary, no matter what toils and troubles the diary was put through, it remained undamaged, though it should have been in shambles. The reason for this could potentially be attributed to the horcrux, which seems to have preserved the diary. Similarily, the horcrux within a human, though the human could die (if the horcrux used the human's soul as a shield for itself), the horcrux could in turn grant life (though perhaps a comatose one) to the human, as Riddle's diary, like other horcruxes, seemed to have a mind of its own. It would be giving life to that which is lifeless.

But, then again, "Avada Kedavra" supposedly means "let the thing be destroyed" . If destruction is what truly comes from the Avada Kedavra curse, then perhaps my point falls flat.

Back on the topic of Gryffindor's sword:

There is no evidence that the diadem was goblin-made. We know that Muriel's tiara was, but the diadem was described as "tarnished," which we know should not happen to goblin-made metals. Thus, I do not think that comparison can be made.

Ah, I must have gotten them confused.

[merrymarge]

I thought the Diadem of Ravenclaw was magically made, because the wearer became smarter while wearing it. If it was goblin made, then it meant special properties were added to it. And I think that was why it had to be destroyed by Fiendfyre.

[willfitz]

Originally Posted by merrymarge

I thought the Diadem of Ravenclaw was magically made, because the wearer became smarter while wearing it. If it was goblin made, then it meant special properties were added to it. And I think that was why it had to be destroyed by Fiendfyre.

We don't know for a fact that it needed to be destroyed by Fiendfyre. Like all Horcruxes, it needed to be destroyed by something so destructive that it would be irreparable, but just because that turned out to be Fiendfyre in the diadem's case, there is no way to judge whether a basilisk fang or the sword would have done the trick.

[horcrux4]

Originally Posted by willfitz

We don't know for a fact that it needed to be destroyed by Fiendfyre. Like all Horcruxes, it needed to be destroyed by something so destructive that it would be irreparable, but just because that turned out to be Fiendfyre in the diadem's case, there is no way to judge whether a basilisk fang or the sword would have done the trick.

I agree. The fact that an object is or isn't goblin made doesn't seem to be a factor in horcrux destruction. If a basilisk fang destroyed the cup then I'd have thought it could have been equally effective on the diadem (which I don't think was goblin made because of the tarnishing). When Harry brought the diadem out of the fire it was leaking a tarry substance and then broke apart in his hands. I think the sword would have had to be broken too and the result of fiendfyre seems to me to be suitable for a sword horcrux.

Question: did Nagini have to be killed with Gryffindor's sword or would any sword have done?

[Revaunch]

Originally Posted by horcrux4

Question: did Nagini have to be killed with Gryffindor's sword or would any sword have done?

I think that if a regular sword was used Volderlmort could have used magic to repair her wound. If Voldemort was not present I think a regular sword would have worked.

[merrymarge]

Gryffindor's sword was covered with Basilisk venom. Since Nagini was a Horcrux, that was a way to destroy the "container". A regular sword might not have worked.

[willfitz]

Originally Posted by horcrux4

Question: did Nagini have to be killed with Gryffindor's sword or would any sword have done?

As far as I can tell, death counts as irreparable damage for a living creature, and no snake can survive having its head lopped off by any sword. So I don't see any reason why the basilisk venom would be required. For the Horcruxes which were objects, the venom was necessary because it was the venom which prevented the object from being repaired via "reparo" or similar spells.

[Peakes]

I would tend to agree; as I see it, that's the main disadvantage in making a horcrux out of a living entity.

[merrymarge]

o.k. but what if Neville stabbed Nagini instead of cutting her head off? would an ordinary sword work or would it have to be the Sword Of Gryffindor?

[willfitz]

Originally Posted by merrymarge

o.k. but what if Neville stabbed Nagini instead of cutting her head off? would an ordinary sword work or would it have to be the Sword Of Gryffindor?

Is it a fatal stab, or just a life-threatening one?

It all depends on one thing- does Nagini die before she is able to get magical, medical help? If she dies first, then the damage is irreparable. If she survives, then the damage is usually capable of being healed, as most injuries to living creatures are.

[merrymarge]

Good answer.

[EXPELIAMUS]

I wonder if Rowling will actually reveal the process of making a horcrux, particularly the gruesome part. Upon hearing it, her editor felt like vomiting, so maybe that was a sign to keep it under wraps.