Questions about Horcruxes

[runitsandrew]

Reference: Version One

Last Few Posts:    

---

Originally Posted by _uh So, in order to make Horcruxes, you have to split your soul, and in order to split your soul you have to commit the terrible act, murder. A lot of people have used Avada Kedavra before. But does that mean that their soul has been split as well? If so, where does the split soul go to? Another question, is Voldys apperance so snake like because he only has 1/7th of his soul? We think that in order to be human, you have to have a soul, so is that why his apperance is so snake like? I think Dumbledoe explained this, but I don't know if I was clear on the explination. Oh, and lindaluna - That Tarot card in your signature...whose deck is that from? The only symbol I've seen for Strength is a woman prying open a lions mouth. I know there are many different types of cards out there, but from all of the different ones, that's the only Strength card I've only seen. Plus, I think I would like your deck bettter! That drawing is beautiful! (If it is a bit silly!). Originally Posted by Ingwe Ok whoever commits the supreme act of evil (murder) has ripped their own soul apart. The entire soul would still remain with the individual who murdered but it would be in pieces. As for Voldemort's appearance, I believe that he has become like this because of everything that he has done through the years and his associate with snakes. He has transformed his appearance in order to look more like a Dark Lord sure. As for his appearances relationship to his sould I cannot speak but I think that it is just a matter of his body is reflecting the demon within him. Originally Posted by justaHPfan Dumbledore does seem to feel that his physical transformation goes along with the making of the horcruxes. It's possible that Voldemort did other transformations that would affect his appearance, but given that we now know of horcruxes, it seems likely that the horcruxes were the "dangerous transformations" Dumbledore made mention of in CoS. Indeed, Dumbledore said something to the effect that he felt that Voldemort could only look that way if he, Voldy, had done damage to his soul. Regarding the horcruxes, murder splits the soul but the horcrux spell captures that split and places it outside the body in another object. So those who murder without using the horcrux spell simply have a cracked soul inside their bodies - that is the implication anyway. Originally Posted by unconvinced We know that if a persons soul is taken by a dementor the person is effectively dead, so why has Voldemort retained his selfconcious and personallity? In fact the only effect the Horcruxes seem to have had on him is his snake like appearance, which I believe to be a result of putting part of his soul in Nagini.

Go ahead and continue discussion.

[schizopath]

I've got this question on Horcruxes: Do you have to kill or order someone to kill? Like for example: If Voldy ordered the Basilisk to kill Myrtle, could he have created a Horcrux by that even if he did not fully administer the killing (He just ordered)?

[RemusLupinFan]

Originally Posted by schizopath

I've got this question on Horcruxes: Do you have to kill or order someone to kill? Like for example: If Voldy ordered the Basilisk to kill Myrtle, could he have created a Horcrux by that even if he did not fully administer the killing (He just ordered)?

That's a good question. The way I understand it, it seems you have to actually be the one doing the killing in order to create a horcrux, even though murder for hire is just as heinous.

[schizopath]

So when Voldemort asks Wormtail to kill Cedric, could a Horcrux be created there?

[Ehmmar]

My understanding is that you have to do the killing, but I could be wrong.

To me, it's just as bad to get someone to kill a person for you as it is to kill them yourself though.

[Dedalus Diggle]

There is nothing in canon to say one way or the other. In most legal systems, deliberately causing someone to be killed is a murder, just as much as if you 'pull the trigger' yourself. Consider Hitler - he probably never killed anyone by his own hand, but is he nor responsible for the deaths of over 11 million people (without even counting the deaths from the warfare)?

However, there is a sense in which a 'second-hand' killing is less involved than doing it yourself, though just as opprobrious: you can order someone killed without having the stomach to do it oneself. Draco would have been fine with setting up a murder, and in fact, that is what his efforts came to, but he could not do it himself. Perhaps it takes doing the killing oneself to tear the soul in the way making a horcrux requires. Harming any fellow being batters the soul, but perhaps only committing a murder oneself rips it.

[ProfLupin]

Originally Posted by schizopath

So when Voldemort asks Wormtail to kill Cedric, could a Horcrux be created there?

By Wormtail, yes, provided he knows the incantation to split part of his soul from the rest of his soul and remove it from his body.

Voldemort would not be able to use it at all.

Dumbledore referred to Harry as having a whole and untarnished soul. Yet Harry's power killed Quirrell at the end of Philosopher's Stone {at least I believe so}, and Harry felt responsible for Cedric's death, as well as for Sirius's death, yet Harry's soul remains whole and untarnished. So being responsible for a death does not necessarily mark your soul, literally killing a person does.

The steps to a Horcrux appear to be:

1. Kill, thereby marking your soul
2. Use incantation to split soul, separate soul from body, and encase it within a Horcrux.

[Dedalus Diggle]

Originally Posted by ProfLupin

By Wormtail, yes, provided he knows the incantation to split part of his soul from the rest of his soul and remove it from his body.

Voldemort would not be able to use it at all.

Dumbledore referred to Harry as having a whole and untarnished soul. Yet Harry's power killed Quirrell at the end of Philosopher's Stone {at least I believe so}, and Harry felt responsible for Cedric's death, as well as for Sirius's death, yet Harry's soul remains whole and untarnished. So being responsible for a death does not necessarily mark your soul, literally killing a person does.

The steps to a Horcrux appear to be:

1. Kill, thereby marking your soul
2. Use incantation to split soul, separate soul from body, and encase it within a Horcrux.

Now hold on! There is a huge difference between 'feeling responsible' and even causing someone's death through acts not intended to harm on the one hand and setting out to have them killed on the other. Harry was led astray in OOTP and this set in motion events which led to Sirius's death, but he never had the intention for Sirius to die. Likewise, Harry could have taken the Triwizard Cup and Cedric would have been spared, but Harry did not do anything to harm Cedric. On the other hand, both Voldemort and Pettigrew formed the intention that Cedric should die, and they are both murderers for causing his death. Innocent or even mildly blameworthy acts can lead to someone's death, but that does not make you guilty of murder - choosing to cause someone's death is murder, whether by your own hand or by causing someone else to perform the killing. Whether 'by one''s own hand' is required in HP - world for making a horcrux is something only JKR can know - and it probably does not make any difference - but Harry's mistakes or sense of guilt does not provide evidence one way or the other.

[VianneRocher]

Perhaps a Horcrux is only created if you maliciously intended to kill someone, but if you killed through self defence (like when Harry fought with Quirrel) it doesn't?

But then how do we know that Harry killed Quirrel, we know that he crtainly inflicted alot of pain, but Harry sunk into unconsciousness just as Dumbledore arrived so maybe he finished him off? Or had Voldemort taken over Quirrel's body so completely that he was already dead by that point

[ProfLupin]

Originally Posted by Dedalus Diggle

Now hold on! There is a huge difference between 'feeling responsible' and even causing someone's death through acts not intended to harm on the one hand and setting out to have them killed on the other. Harry was led astray in OOTP and this set in motion events which led to Sirius's death, but he never had the intention for Sirius to die. Likewise, Harry could have taken the Triwizard Cup and Cedric would have been spared, but Harry did not do anything to harm Cedric. On the other hand, both Voldemort and Pettigrew formed the intention that Cedric should die, and they are both murderers for causing his death. Innocent or even mildly blameworthy acts can lead to someone's death, but that does not make you guilty of murder - choosing to cause someone's death is murder, whether by your own hand or by causing someone else to perform the killing. Whether 'by one''s own hand' is required in HP - world for making a horcrux is something only JKR can know - and it probably does not make any difference - but Harry's mistakes or sense of guilt does not provide evidence one way or the other.

My point was that only the person who intentionally murders marks their souls.

For instance, I do not believe that Tom Riddle marked his soul with the death of Moaning Myrtle. Her death was an accident. He did not intentionally set the basilisk on her. She opened the door to her stall and glimpsed the basilisk's eyes. Was Riddle responsible for it? Absolutely. Did he regret it? Not in the slightest. Did it mark his soul? No, I do not believe so, it was an accident not a deliberate act of murder.

Peter is responsible for the deaths of James and Lily. Peter was their secret keeper. Peter betrayed them. Is his soul marked? No, I do not believe so. We know that Voldemort actually performed the act, so it should be his soul that was marked, not Peter's.

We are told:

Half-Blood Prince, Horcruxes "How do you split your soul?" "Well," said Slughorn uncomfortably, "you must understand that the soul is supposed to remain intact and whole. Splitting it is an act of violation, it is against nature." "But how do you do it?" "By an act of evil---the supreme act of evil. By committing murder. Killing rips the soul apart."

It is the act of murder that marks one's soul, not who is responsible for causing it, whether that is morally right or wrong. That is my understanding of canon.

[Dedalus Diggle]

Originally Posted by ProfLupin

My point was that only the person who intentionally murders marks their souls.

For instance, I do not believe that Tom Riddle marked his soul with the death of Moaning Myrtle. Her death was an accident. He did not intentionally set the basilisk on her. She opened the door to her stall and glimpsed the basilisk's eyes. Was Riddle responsible for it? Absolutely. Did he regret it? Not in the slightest. Did it mark his soul? No, I do not believe so, it was an accident not a deliberate act of murder.

Peter is responsible for the deaths of James and Lily. Peter was their secret keeper. Peter betrayed them. Is his soul marked? No, I do not believe so. We know that Voldemort actually performed the act, so it should be his soul that was marked, not Peter's.

We are told:It is the act of murder that marks one's soul, not who is responsible for causing it, whether that is morally right or wrong. That is my understanding of canon.

I agree with these examples, but Voldemort ordering 'kill the spare' is just as much murder as if he had wielded the wand himself.

[Loony_Lovegood]

I think that Voldemort woud have to be the one who commited the murderer. Maybe James or Lily was used to make a Horcrux?

[ProfLupin]

Originally Posted by Dedalus Diggle

I agree with these examples, but Voldemort ordering 'kill the spare' is just as much murder as if he had wielded the wand himself.

I agree, ordering the death does make Voldemort responsible for it. He is responsible for many deaths.

A mob boss who orders a hit is just as guilty of murder as the wiseguy who perpetrates the crime. In American society, he could and should be held legally, morally, ethically responsible for it.

The question, however, is: In the fictional wizarding world of Harry Potter, does ordering a 'murder' mark the soul, or does performing the act of 'murder' mark the soul?

According to canon, it is the deliberate act of murder which rips the soul. So, if you did not perform the act of murder, then your soul should remain unmarked by the murder, irrespective of moral, ethical, or legal responsibility for ordering of said murder.

[VianneRocher]

I agree with ProfLin's examples above, and as was highlighted "comitting Murder" proves undoubtly that it is the act itself that is the violation of nature, not the act itself. Words at the end of the day are just words.

[BeamSlayer]

When Voldermorts ** rebounded on him, and if he didnt have horcruxes, then he would have died, correct? But with the horcruxes, he could survive untill he got his body back, but how did he get some of his soul back?

His soul in his body would have been destroyed by the **, so then he would need to use a horcrux's soul to have one for himself. Maby there is one less horcrux left out there, maby he just made 2 more, I dont know.

Main Question: Where did the soul in voldermort (currently) come from?

[xyrax]

I mentioned this before, but this was (basically) the response I got:

Dumbledore says in HBP that the soul in Voldemort barely survived, but it survived, so the soul that he has now, however marred, is the same as before.

[BeamSlayer]

Ok. Where does it say that?

[JJC]

Where did the soul in voldermort (currently) come from?

It was the part that was in Voldemort when his own Avada Kedavra curse backfired. It was ripped from his body, not destroyed (thanks to his Horcruxes), and became what is commonly referred to as Vapourmort. It was this soul piece that fled to Albania and then later possessed Quirrell. After PoA, with Wormtail's help, a rudimentary 'embryonic' body was made to house it until a full body was created for it in the Graveyard at the end of GoF. Prior to his attempt to kill Harry as a baby Voldemort had made 5 Horcruxes meaning that his soul was in 6 pieces. He intended to make his sixth and final Horcrux using the tear in his soul resulting from his murder of Harry, but of course he wasn't able to do this. Therefore many years later, after his return to physical form, he murdered somebody else and turned Nagini into his sixth Horcrux thus achieving his goal of dividing his soul into 7 separate pieces. Hope that helps!

Originally posted by ProfLupin:
The steps to a Horcrux appear to be:
Kill, thereby marking your soul
Use incantation to split soul, separate soul from body, and encase it within a Horcrux.

Actually the quote you posted shows that this isn't quite correct.

"How do you split your soul?"
"By an act of evil---the supreme act of evil. By committing murder. Killing rips the soul apart."

It is the act of killing that tears the soul, not the Horcrux spell. We are told that the Horcrux spell is required to 'encase' the soul fragment in an object.

My question is this: When exactly does the soul tear? Does it happen the moment the victim dies or might it occur when the Avada Kedavra curse is cast? Crouch Jr states that 'Avada Kedavra’s a curse that needs a powerful bit of magic behind it.' Could this power be the deliberate splitting of one's soul?

[kingwidgit]

Originally Posted by JJC

Actually the quote you posted shows that this isn't quite correct.

It is the act of killing that tears the soul, not the Horcrux spell. We are told that the Horcrux spell is required to 'encase' the soul fragment in an object.

My question is this: When exactly does the soul tear? Does it happen the moment the victim dies or might it occur when the Avada Kedavra curse is cast? Crouch Jr states that 'Avada Kedavra’s a curse that needs a powerful bit of magic behind it.' Could this power be the deliberate splitting of one's soul?

Actually, I believe ProfLupin got it right.

I think that the rip that occurs to the soul by committing murder is not necessarily a complete separation, but rather like a perforation...damaging the soul, yet not severing it from the main portion of soul within the body. We're told that the damage caused by the murder is used to the advantage of the Dark wizard, who uses an incantation to then remove or 'tear along the dotted lines' a portion of soul and encase it within a Horcrux.

[JJC]

I'm afraid I have to disagree. Slughorn clearly says 'Killing rips the soul apart' It does raise the interesting question as to exactly what the consequences are when a Horcrux is not created. When I read HBP I imagined the soul to be akin to a piece of cloth, with Voldemort's being practically shredded, which appears to be similar to your way of thinking. However, Slughorn also says that 'the soul is supposed to remain intact and whole. Splitting it is an act of violation, it is against nature', which makes me wonder if soul pieces are drawn together rather like two bodies in space are drawn together by gravity. In other words after the soul is split the separate parts remain in contact with each other unless the spell is cast to remove one and encase it in an object.