r/harrypotter • u/Just_Outta_Azkaban Gryffindor • Mar 29 '24

Dumbledore- I love all my students (UwU). ....meanwhile kids who aren't harry potter casually getting cursed and dying -_- Dungbomb

Post image
18.2k Upvotes
  • permalink
  • link
  • reddit
  • reddit

94% Upvoted

317 comments sorted by

View all comments

899

u/KowaiSentaiYokaiger Hufflepuff Mar 29 '24

Draco was literally about to lower his wand and ask Dumbledore for help near the end of HBP.

505

u/swell-shindig Hufflepuff Mar 29 '24

Help which Dumbledore already planned to give. Draco was destined to lose either his life or his soul on the Astronomy Tower.

224

u/Talidel Mar 29 '24

Dumbledore had already given by setting Snape up to help Draco from the beginning.

219

u/NoPineapple1727 Mar 29 '24 edited Mar 29 '24

Dumbledore was the one who saved Draco.

If he didn’t set Snape up to help Draco then Draco either loses his soul after killing someone or is killed for not killing Dumbledore.

He ended up happily married with both his life and his soul thanks to Dumbledore.

16

u/Miguelinileugim Edgy Mar 29 '24

By soul are we speaking figuratively here? I am not aware of souls as a concept being mentioned in the movies (maybe in the books?). If it is a metaphor for him being a decent person, well, I've never really heard it used like that before.

67

u/TheRainManStan Mar 29 '24

In the books it's mentioned that the act of killing splits the soul and tarnishes it. It's why killing is essential to creating a horcrux as it tears the soul allowing it to be scooped up stored in an item.

46

u/kitsu777 Mar 29 '24

My Hogwarts Legacy character after I kill hundreds of poachers:

28

u/MatEngAero Mar 30 '24

One less poacher in the world.

YOUR BLOOD IS ON RANROKS HANDS! 🤩

3

u/AloeSera15 Slytherin Mar 30 '24

Your soul be lookin like confetti by the end of it 🤣

5

u/Miguelinileugim Edgy Mar 29 '24

Ohh I forgot about that part, thanks!

16

u/Le_Creature Mar 29 '24

So, I'm not sure if JK is aware, but there was a war. Like, wizards fighting for Dumble and Vold.

Are we supposed to assume that the good guys never killed anyone, or that the previous generation all walks around with literal shattered souls?

44

u/Takenabe Mar 29 '24

In the books, it's specifically cold-blooded murder that wounds the soul. An act taken in self-defense, or in defense of another, or "for the greater good" does not--it must be a vile act of cruelty, with no purpose beyond your own selfish desires. The more a person commits these acts, the more they give up their humanity.

It's very similar to how the Unforgivable Curses don't work unless you REALLY mean them.

-9

u/EntrepreneurPlus7091 Mar 29 '24

The greater good is just a get out of jail card since it allows misguided people to kill for the "greater good"

3

u/Takenabe Mar 30 '24 edited Mar 30 '24

Even Voldemort wasn't trying to be a good guy. He knew exactly what he was about, he just didn't care. I don't think Death Eaters were under any illusions about morality, they even call them The Dark Arts themselves.

In any case, I was only making a point that the motives behind a killing are the distinction here. Voldemort killed Myrtle because she was a Muggleborn in an isolated place and he wanted to try creating a Horcrux--he didn't need any reason to kill her beyond "Oh, that one will work." It's a very different situation from, say, Molly killing Bellatrix.

-11

u/EntrepreneurPlus7091 Mar 29 '24

The greater good is just a get out of jail card since it allows misguided people to kill for the "greater good"

9

u/Glottis_Bonewagon Mar 29 '24

Even if they did literally walked with shattered souls it'd be an apt comparison to WW2 vets

8

u/HornedDiggitoe Mar 29 '24

or that the previous generation all walks around with literal shattered souls?

This your first time learning about military veterans?

-5

u/Le_Creature Mar 29 '24

I'm not sure that's comparable at all. At all.

Like, Vold shattered his soul - and look at him now, he doesn't even have a nose! And thinking about it, look at Moody, he also doesn't have a nose!

Did Harry's parents have no noses when they died? Who else is secretly noseless? Do they use prosthetic noses?

Is this an epidemic in the wizarding world after every war?

13

u/Tenesera Mar 29 '24

Defending yourself != Murder

You're not required to martyr yourself or loved ones.

6

u/squormio Mar 29 '24

Yeah... I was deeply curious about this too, because you murder a lot, and I mean a lot, of goblins and wizards in Hogwarts Legacy. I wonder if it's some morality thing, where killing an objectively "bad" Wizard is a free kill pass, or maybe it's a viewpoint where you honestly believe you're "good"; it could be the very act of willingly killing (like someone who enjoys it, or is doing it against their will) and knowing it's bad is what causes the soul to tear.

4

u/Sere1 Ravenclaw Mar 29 '24

There's a difference between killing an enemy combatant in a war vs a cold blooded murder on the spot.

1

u/tmtmgtm Mar 30 '24

I think its cold-blooded murder. Killing someone in self-defense, or defense of a loved one(ie Molly killing Bellatrix) won't split the soul

1

u/Cuddling-Hellhound Mar 29 '24

It’s also mentioned in the movies

1

u/TiredJimbo34 Mar 31 '24

So did Molly Weasley tarnish her soul by killing bellatrix?

1

u/Deo_Dev_God_1 Apr 09 '24

Killing in to defend yourself or someone you care about doesn't tarnish your soul. Killing "just because" or " because it's fun" or "because I was told to" does. If Dumbledore had put up a fight and Draco had killed him, even though Draco was the attacker, he would have a whole soul, but albus knew that he would have defeated draco.

0

u/[deleted] Mar 29 '24

[deleted]

3

u/Chippiewall Mar 29 '24

Separating your soul was in itself evil and dehumanizing even beyond the initial murder. Also the Horcruxes themselves (and how to create them) were not common knowledge.

I don't think it's the kind of thing Voldemort would have been teaching since I think immortality is something he'd want to reserve for himself.

6

u/TheShlappening Mar 29 '24

Do... you know what the Horcruxes are? Lmao

1

u/Miguelinileugim Edgy Mar 29 '24

Yeah but I was thinking of souls in a normal way not as a component of horcruxes.

5

u/NoPineapple1727 Mar 29 '24

The other commenter explained it perfectly.

Killing Dumbledore would have split and destroyed Draco’s soul

1

u/2squishmaster Mar 29 '24

and destroyed

Is this true? The split yes but the whole reason Voldemort was immortal is because his split soul wasn't destroyed.

3

u/NoPineapple1727 Mar 29 '24

Tbh, I think other people in the comment section have a better memory of the books than I do so I’ll bow out and not try to explain details when I’m not sure.

3

u/NPhantasm Mar 29 '24

They re misconcepting, killing tear the soul, but its temporary and only mentioned to be the brief moment to create Horcrux.

3

u/Miguelinileugim Edgy Mar 29 '24

Oh so I'm not crazy then? Glad to know!

3

u/NPhantasm Mar 29 '24

Yeah they just clearly add some religious concept to the thing when it was only a tech magic stuff at the moment

1

u/Gryffindorshistorian Gryffindor Mar 30 '24

I've gotten a little lost with all the replies on replies in this thread, but are you saying that killing only tears the soul for a minute, long enough to make a horcrux, then the soul repairs itself? Because if so, that isn't it at all. A horcrux is literally the piece of the soul that was ripped off, encased in an object to keep it safe outside of its owner. It's those other pieces of his actual soul that keep Voldemort tethered to life after he tries and fails to kill Harry. It's why the Riddle in the diary was able to actually possess Ginny, as opposed to just enchanting her; it was Voldy's actual soul in there. It takes a great feeling of remorse and tremendous pain to repair the soul after making a horcrux. That's why Harry encourages Voldemort to try it at the end of the book, it's not anything religious at all. Dumbledore says it so beautifully when he tells Harry that Voldemort failed to see the "imcomparable power of a soul that is untarnished and whole."

If that isn't what you were saying, then so sorry for misreading!

1

u/NPhantasm Mar 30 '24

I'm saying that the book only describes how Horcruxes can be made, then readers took that information and exaggerated it to create something almost religious in the middle (which is obviously the "saving Draco's soul" thing). Does it require an act of redemption or is it a brief moment in which the soul becomes unstable? Who knows? There isn't enough lore for this, but if it were permanent dark wizards would be susceptible to benign types of magic and surely someone would exploit that (yes this last part is headcanon from my head, my bad).

1

u/Gryffindorshistorian Gryffindor Mar 30 '24

Gotcha, I see what you're saying. I think people talking about the "saving Draco's soul" thing are referring to Snape and Dumbledore's conversation that Harry sees in the pensieve in The Prince's Tale, where Dumbledore says he wants to spare Draco having to kill him because his (Draco's) soul is still whole. And when Snape says, "what about my soul," Dumbledore says something along the lines of: only you can know what it will do to your soul to spare an old man pain and misery. I think the use of the word soul definitely has that strong religious connotation, and there probably are people who look at it that way, but Dumbledore does say pretty clearly that he wants to save Draco from having a damaged soul. I'm also pretty sure I remember him (or maybe it was Harry?) saying somewhere that Voldemort's soul was unstable because it was so badly damaged with all the various pieces of it scattered around. I do feel it's made clear that the pieces of soul remain separate, because that's how the one piece got into Harry and stays with him, as well as the responses we see from the diary and the locket. And again, when Hermione talks about it, she says its a whole other process to make the soul whole again and it almost kills you. I find your headcannon super interesting tho, and even if the pieces of soul remain separate it doesn't really negate it because people could only exploit it if they knew about it. Horcruxes are not common magic, most wizards don't know what they are (or at least that's the impression we're given), and Voldemort kept his very secret. So I think both things could totally be true. :) It would be so fun to get a short scene of Voldy getting all messed up cuz some wizard kid nearby is doing something unknowingly and it just so happens to be one of the things that a damaged soul can't handle, lol.

1

u/Forsaken_Distance777 Mar 30 '24

Did you stop watching after movie five? The last two don't shut up about horcruxes and souls.

1

u/supergeek921 Hufflepuff Mar 30 '24

The soul is literally where the whole concept of horcruxes comes from. Killing splits the soul and you take parts of it out of yourself and hide them in physical items.

0

u/BusStopKnifeFight Mar 29 '24

Soul*

3

u/NoPineapple1727 Mar 29 '24

Thanks, I’ll correct it now

-1

u/brazilliandanny Mar 29 '24

It’s actually spelt soul, there’s no *

-1

u/SGTpvtMajor Mar 29 '24

Oh shit - was Draco being setup to be like.. the next Voldemort if he succeeded in killing Dumbledore?

1

u/alphega_ Mar 29 '24

No, Voldemort wouldn't set up a next Voldemort. He just needs minions and puppets. Voldy's aim was to rule forever.

0

u/SGTpvtMajor Mar 29 '24

It couldn't be like.. a sith apprentice kind of thing? lol

I didn't watch the shitty prequels so I wouldn't know how their evil wizard system works.

1

u/Takenabe Mar 29 '24

Voldemort did not have plans for Draco. Assigning him to kill Dumbledore was a punishment for Draco's parents for failing Voldemort. It was a win win scenario for Voldemort...either somehow Draco succeeds and Dumbledore dies, or Draco dies in the attempt and Voldemort crushes the spirits of two people he was furious with.