My brother and I got into a discussion about the great evil villian in books. We discussed Voldemort, Sauron and other characters like them. A question was raised that I thought the VTM members may enjoy.
What characteristics/experiences of the villian make them truly horrifying? Can a villian's life experiences enhance the perceived evil in them? Specifically, we discussed a particular life experience.
Let me explain. I do not mean the actions of the villian. Murdering Harry's parents was evil. But does the fall from power somehow make Voldemort more evil? In Lord of the Rings, Sauron lost his power. Later, he gained power again. Does the re-rise to power make the character more evil?
The arguement we had was how much more ruthless a villian might become after experiencing the fall from power. Do you think a specific action upon a villian could change the perceptions we have of a character? Can something make the ultimate villian more or less evil?
Full Version: Greatest Evil
The experiences in Voldemort's life (mostly in his earlier years) are likely to have a great impact on how evil he turns out to be.
As a child, he grew up in an orphanage, knowing he was different, but never being acknowledged for it. All through his childhood, Voldemort never knew what love meant, or what it was like to love someone, which makes him all the more ruthless. He's never felt love, so he doesn't understand what it's like to lose someone you love, which makes it easier for him to kill large amounts of people.
At Hogwarts, students and teachers alike respected him, some even feared him. He then knew what power was, and he knew he had a great amount of power over teachers, which only made him hungry for more. He still never learned to love, and was never really loved by anyone else, so Voldemort grew up differently than the average wizard.
Voldemort was power-hungry, talented, and concieted. He knew he was especially talented, and he used it to his advantage. His ego, which undoubtedly grew larger every day, only boosted his wish to "rule the Wizarding world," for lack of a better term.
When Harry "defeated" Voldemort for the first time, his ego was tarnished, along with his reputation and his powers. This caused, as you said, an even stronger desire to overthrow anyone who stood in his way: the Order, Harry, and Dumbledore.
Furthermore, something can make Voldemort less evil, like you said, but I doubt anything that dramatic will happen. Things such as losing a loved one, or sympathizing with his victims cause villains to relent a little. We all know, though, that Voldemort would never sympathize with anyone, and (as I've said) he never loved anyone. Respected, maybe, but never loved. Which is the reason Voldemort is so ruthless,you know? He doesn't feel the same emotions real humans do and it helps that he's not entirely human, too.
As a child, he grew up in an orphanage, knowing he was different, but never being acknowledged for it. All through his childhood, Voldemort never knew what love meant, or what it was like to love someone, which makes him all the more ruthless. He's never felt love, so he doesn't understand what it's like to lose someone you love, which makes it easier for him to kill large amounts of people.
At Hogwarts, students and teachers alike respected him, some even feared him. He then knew what power was, and he knew he had a great amount of power over teachers, which only made him hungry for more. He still never learned to love, and was never really loved by anyone else, so Voldemort grew up differently than the average wizard.
Voldemort was power-hungry, talented, and concieted. He knew he was especially talented, and he used it to his advantage. His ego, which undoubtedly grew larger every day, only boosted his wish to "rule the Wizarding world," for lack of a better term.
When Harry "defeated" Voldemort for the first time, his ego was tarnished, along with his reputation and his powers. This caused, as you said, an even stronger desire to overthrow anyone who stood in his way: the Order, Harry, and Dumbledore.
Furthermore, something can make Voldemort less evil, like you said, but I doubt anything that dramatic will happen. Things such as losing a loved one, or sympathizing with his victims cause villains to relent a little. We all know, though, that Voldemort would never sympathize with anyone, and (as I've said) he never loved anyone. Respected, maybe, but never loved. Which is the reason Voldemort is so ruthless,you know? He doesn't feel the same emotions real humans do and it helps that he's not entirely human, too.
In one interview, JKR said that in one way Snape is more culpable than LV, in that Snape had known love and should therefore know better, whereas LV had not. So in some sense she's saying that Snape had more choice options in life, and his moral failing is if anything deeper for having had those options.
LV is evil in the sense HarryPotterFreak points out--he is all about power, always has been, seemingly always will be. Even DD came to see that there was little hope of the young sociopath ever being redeemed (tho he let Tom have his life, much to everyone else's loss). I see LV and his utter devotion to power and rejection of mortality as a kind of force of evil, but not himself human enough to be morally evil--it's as if he exists outside the moral realm altogether, and yet is this thing that other still-humans like Draco and others can be made evil by. This is a possibility for Snape--it is possible that his choices in response to this dark force have led him down a dark path to genuine human evil, evil being not so much consorting with power but rejecting love.
LV is evil in the sense HarryPotterFreak points out--he is all about power, always has been, seemingly always will be. Even DD came to see that there was little hope of the young sociopath ever being redeemed (tho he let Tom have his life, much to everyone else's loss). I see LV and his utter devotion to power and rejection of mortality as a kind of force of evil, but not himself human enough to be morally evil--it's as if he exists outside the moral realm altogether, and yet is this thing that other still-humans like Draco and others can be made evil by. This is a possibility for Snape--it is possible that his choices in response to this dark force have led him down a dark path to genuine human evil, evil being not so much consorting with power but rejecting love.
Teehee... I love this topic. 
I don't think Snape is pure evil. I think he can be a right pain in the arse, and he's a faithful Death Eater, but not evil.
I think the reason Snape is a Death Eater is because he doesn't want to be in control of his life. So many horrible things have happened to him (we all can assume his father was abusive, at least to his mother) and he didn't have a very loving childhood. He decided to shut himself out, and let someone else take the wheel, because he didn't want it anymore. I don't know if that makes any sense - I only just thought of it about two seconds ago.
I don't think Snape is pure evil. I think he can be a right pain in the arse, and he's a faithful Death Eater, but not evil.
I think the reason Snape is a Death Eater is because he doesn't want to be in control of his life. So many horrible things have happened to him (we all can assume his father was abusive, at least to his mother) and he didn't have a very loving childhood. He decided to shut himself out, and let someone else take the wheel, because he didn't want it anymore. I don't know if that makes any sense - I only just thought of it about two seconds ago.
HaRRYPoTTeR FReaK, i agree with what you said about snape not being entirely evil, and i agree that he doesn't want to have to control his life anymore, but i disagree with him actively gving up that control. Yes, he has been through a lot, but we have seen that this has only made him want to be more in control. He hates to be called a coward, because being a coward would allw others power over him, I believe that he is good, and loyal to DD, and although he hates having to lie and spy, he would not give up that option, not give up that little bit of control.
On the Evil Topic...- I believe Voldemort to be evil, certainly, but it seems to be evil that is no longer out of choice.
I think the comparison between Tom Riddle and Lord Voldemort is a good one, because they are the same person, yet so different.
I think that the main difference is choice. Tom Riddle chose to murder people, chose to rip apart his soul, and chose a path of darkness and death. On that path, he completely lost himself. He bacame Lord voldemort.
Voldemort did not have the choice that Tom Riddle had. He had already been trapped in the world, and was dependent on death and power. He didn't have the choice to turn around and stop. Yes, Riddle was quick becomming addicted to his power stuggle, but he had the option, the choice to stop, before he got in to deep.
So, Tom Riddle is more Evil than Voldemort, if you can have varying degrees of evil- you have to define evil first which is the difficult task.
Voldemorts most obvious actions may be more evil- he killed more people, installed more fear into the general population, but he did not have the choice. I dont even believe he had the consience. I dont even believe that he could have stopped, he diod not have an active consience. Riddle did, but he chose to ignore it. And this made him more evil.
so, i think that the thing that makes somebody truely evil is not what they do, but what they chose to do. Somebody under the imperious curse is not evil, neither is a young child that has been brainwashed. Somebody that knows what they are doing and chose to do it anyway is truely evil, they show complete lack of love or respect, and they are more dangerous. They lack the emotions that mae them human, and abuse this lack of emotion. This evil person knows what evil they do, but do it anyway.
This is what scares people. How do you defeat an evil that has no fear, no weakness??
On the terms of a life experience enhancing the perceived evil in them, perception is a personnal thing. If somebody that you see as evil has been through something that you yourself fear or hate, you are likely to fear them more.
If you do not know somebody, but know what they have done and fear that, you automatically fear them. The life experience that you fear in that person is personal, and percieved evil is different for everybody. So yes, the things that somebody has been through can make them more evil to you, but maybe not to others, or even to the person themselves. Evil is all perception and personal choices.
so, yes, life experience can enhance the percieved evil in somebody, but does it enhance the evil that they actually are? if they are evil in the first place- and this only really applies to my theory of evil above- they have made that choice and no experience can enhance a yes/no decision.
Clara}~
On the Evil Topic...- I believe Voldemort to be evil, certainly, but it seems to be evil that is no longer out of choice.
I think the comparison between Tom Riddle and Lord Voldemort is a good one, because they are the same person, yet so different.
I think that the main difference is choice. Tom Riddle chose to murder people, chose to rip apart his soul, and chose a path of darkness and death. On that path, he completely lost himself. He bacame Lord voldemort.
Voldemort did not have the choice that Tom Riddle had. He had already been trapped in the world, and was dependent on death and power. He didn't have the choice to turn around and stop. Yes, Riddle was quick becomming addicted to his power stuggle, but he had the option, the choice to stop, before he got in to deep.
So, Tom Riddle is more Evil than Voldemort, if you can have varying degrees of evil- you have to define evil first which is the difficult task.
Voldemorts most obvious actions may be more evil- he killed more people, installed more fear into the general population, but he did not have the choice. I dont even believe he had the consience. I dont even believe that he could have stopped, he diod not have an active consience. Riddle did, but he chose to ignore it. And this made him more evil.
QUOTE
What characteristics/experiences of the villian make them truly horrifying? Can a villian's life experiences enhance the perceived evil in them? Specifically, we discussed a particular life experience.
so, i think that the thing that makes somebody truely evil is not what they do, but what they chose to do. Somebody under the imperious curse is not evil, neither is a young child that has been brainwashed. Somebody that knows what they are doing and chose to do it anyway is truely evil, they show complete lack of love or respect, and they are more dangerous. They lack the emotions that mae them human, and abuse this lack of emotion. This evil person knows what evil they do, but do it anyway.
This is what scares people. How do you defeat an evil that has no fear, no weakness??
On the terms of a life experience enhancing the perceived evil in them, perception is a personnal thing. If somebody that you see as evil has been through something that you yourself fear or hate, you are likely to fear them more.
If you do not know somebody, but know what they have done and fear that, you automatically fear them. The life experience that you fear in that person is personal, and percieved evil is different for everybody. So yes, the things that somebody has been through can make them more evil to you, but maybe not to others, or even to the person themselves. Evil is all perception and personal choices.
so, yes, life experience can enhance the percieved evil in somebody, but does it enhance the evil that they actually are? if they are evil in the first place- and this only really applies to my theory of evil above- they have made that choice and no experience can enhance a yes/no decision.
Clara}~
Hmmm... Ya know, I really like this topic. Just what does make a villain evil?
Ok, so I think that we can all agree that Tom Riddle aka Lord Voldemort is, in fact, evil. Now, just for fun, I think we should attempt to figure out just how evil he is.
What characteristics/experiences of the villian make them truly horrifying? Can a villian's life experiences enhance the perceived evil in them?
Oh, absolutely, without a doubt.Though, I suppose it all depends on what the reader considers "evil." Is a serial killer inherently evil, or are his actions provoked by his life experiences?
Personally, I believe that there are many variations of evil. Some people (and creatures) are just plain mean. They have no regard for anyone, including themselves. This, I would say, is an example of someone who is inherently evil. Many serial killers have been described in this way. I believe Tom Riddle to be this kind of evil.
Now, other variations of the word "evil" are applicable to people who are provoked into, or further into, a homicidal situation and/or lifestyle.
For examply, let's look at an abused pet. If someone owns a dog, and does nothing but beat it and starve it for no reason whatsoever, the dog will most likely become viscious toward humans. If, later on in life, the dog is rescued by a caring person, that dog will still harbor memories of his former tortured existence. Most likely, the dog will remain volatile toward humans, and have to be put down.
Erm... did I see Snape's name entered into this topic? I'm just not even going to go there... ::see signature::
Ok, so I think that we can all agree that Tom Riddle aka Lord Voldemort is, in fact, evil. Now, just for fun, I think we should attempt to figure out just how evil he is.
What characteristics/experiences of the villian make them truly horrifying? Can a villian's life experiences enhance the perceived evil in them?
Oh, absolutely, without a doubt.Though, I suppose it all depends on what the reader considers "evil." Is a serial killer inherently evil, or are his actions provoked by his life experiences?
Personally, I believe that there are many variations of evil. Some people (and creatures) are just plain mean. They have no regard for anyone, including themselves. This, I would say, is an example of someone who is inherently evil. Many serial killers have been described in this way. I believe Tom Riddle to be this kind of evil.
Now, other variations of the word "evil" are applicable to people who are provoked into, or further into, a homicidal situation and/or lifestyle.
For examply, let's look at an abused pet. If someone owns a dog, and does nothing but beat it and starve it for no reason whatsoever, the dog will most likely become viscious toward humans. If, later on in life, the dog is rescued by a caring person, that dog will still harbor memories of his former tortured existence. Most likely, the dog will remain volatile toward humans, and have to be put down.
Erm... did I see Snape's name entered into this topic? I'm just not even going to go there... ::see signature::
QUOTE(LilyPotter @ Feb 20 2007, 04:53 PM) [snapback]330066[/snapback]
Hmmm... Ya know, I really like this topic. Just what does make a villain evil?
Ok, so I think that we can all agree that Tom Riddle aka Lord Voldemort is, in fact, evil. Now, just for fun, I think we should attempt to figure out just how evil he is.
What characteristics/experiences of the villian make them truly horrifying? Can a villian's life experiences enhance the perceived evil in them?
Oh, absolutely, without a doubt.Though, I suppose it all depends on what the
Erm... did I see Snape's name entered into this topic? I'm just not even going to go there... ::see signature::
How evil is The Dark Lord...hmmm, Dumbledore said it was our choices that make us who we truly are right. So what makes the villian evil is their choices I think. Again, How evil is he...
1. knowing the power you have over other people and using it knowingly to terrrorize and manipulate them even at the expense of hurting them emotionally and physically. (kids in the orphanage/cave)
2. Killing family, no matter how disappointed you are in them. (killing his paternal grandparents and father.
3. Setting up family to cover up your own actions. It matters not that he didn't respect his mother or her abilities as a witch. Framing his maternal grandfather and uncle should not have had anything to do with that but he did it anyway.
4. Dictatorship/tyranny- murdering others because they disagree with you or because of there background ( muggle, half or pure blood) Disgraceful but he did it.
5. Murdering and torturing innocence-Im speaking of his noncholance (sp) at commiting atrocities against children, even ordering werewolves to attack them...dispicable.
6. This one really gets to me. For the whole of GoF, Voldemort could have returned to power at any time by using the blood of any enemy that hated him. He choose Harry. Evil is hitting someone where it hurts, effectively rendering Harry's blood protection useless. Smart, but evil.
7. OOOH, torturing your own followers-enough said.
I know there is more but I can't think of any right now.
~what characteristics make a villian evil? There are so many villian personalities in Harry Potter: Bella, Umbridge, Lucius, even Fudge...I don't know which one to start with and I will have to think about those some more before I post.
~ I concure about Snape...however( don't hurt me Em,) what I think makes Snape almost more volatile then the other villians is he has tasted what it is like on both sides and can make an informed choice. Which ever side he chooses, good I hope, the other will no doubt fear him because of his knowlege of their operations and his knowlege in magic.--oops getting off topic. That's all I have to say on Severus. (I hope)
The other day I was watching Superman Returns for the millionth time it must be said, and I thought about how similar Lex Luther was to Voldemort. No, I don't mean bald, although to be fair that is true, I mean in that both villains, as are all villians, are only in it for what they can get out of it for themselves. Lex marries some rich widow...for her money and trappings of wealth that will assist him to become more powerful. He cares not one jot for those who do his bidding. LV although not married (in that respect he's worse) cares nothing for his minions. They are just servants of no importance.
I think that is the most telling thing about a villian, they are full of hate for everything and everyone around them. You could say they love power, but just how happy has power made any villian that has ultimately gained it?
I think that is the most telling thing about a villian, they are full of hate for everything and everyone around them. You could say they love power, but just how happy has power made any villian that has ultimately gained it?
The news is a terrible thing to read much of the time. I like to keep abreast of public interest, world headlines, etc., yet most of the news is coloured with the depravity rampant in our societies. Child molesters, rapists, murderers, kidnappers and the lot. I don't even wish to go into the atrocities committed by governments (I'm certainly not excluding mine!).
To me the epitome of evil is the absolute absense of empathy. None. Zip. Rather a complete disregard for anything else living, be it human or animal. For humans, without the inherent empathy chip in place and functioning, there is nothing to rein in the expression of hatred, disrespect, abuse and abject loathing towards others.
That missing empathy chip seems to negate guilt, remorse and any sense of right or wrong. If I transgress even a tiny bit, say as to verbally say something mean (even if I feel it is deserved), I feel guilty. It may not prey on my thoughts, but I feel that sting of guilt for injuring the feelings of another.
To actually take the time to premediate a heinous crime and have the audacity to carry out the plan is nauseating. I also feel it important to note that with that missing empathy chip, another important factor is committing the act without motive, but instead for sport.
To me the epitome of evil is the absolute absense of empathy. None. Zip. Rather a complete disregard for anything else living, be it human or animal. For humans, without the inherent empathy chip in place and functioning, there is nothing to rein in the expression of hatred, disrespect, abuse and abject loathing towards others.
That missing empathy chip seems to negate guilt, remorse and any sense of right or wrong. If I transgress even a tiny bit, say as to verbally say something mean (even if I feel it is deserved), I feel guilty. It may not prey on my thoughts, but I feel that sting of guilt for injuring the feelings of another.
To actually take the time to premediate a heinous crime and have the audacity to carry out the plan is nauseating. I also feel it important to note that with that missing empathy chip, another important factor is committing the act without motive, but instead for sport.
You know, it has occurred to me that these bad guys that we are talking about here...Lex Luther, Voldemort, Sauron etc... seem to have a common thread among them. They all have serious self esteem issues. So is it possible that what truly shapes our villians is there inability to feel good or see good things about themselves? I know I sound like a shrink, (apologies to any on the forums) but could this be the root of where it all began? These men never quite got over someone hurting them emotionally or physically very early in life? As in the case with Voldemort...I mean what could be worse then feeling abandoned by you mother at birth knowing she was a witch and could have possibly used magic at any time to save herself or make her situation better but chose not too?
What do you think?
What do you think?
QUOTE
These men never quite got over someone hurting them emotionally or physically very early in life?
but there's the thing... I always saw 'evil' as a lack of humanity, of the morals and characteristics that make us human. Yes, we are prone to fault and failure, but we also have compassion, love, and a ridiculous, stubborn ability to keep trying at something, even and especially when it seems doomed to fail...
People that have been described are afraid of compassion.. afraid of love and of the end of things, namely life.
This fear seems to drive the humanity out of them.
So, I wouldn't say that they have in fact got over these things, I agree that they are still affected by the things that scarred them in earlier life. But, if this is so, are they truly evil? Are they the greatest evil? because to me, it seems that the ability to be upset by something, the ability to feel emotional pain is one of the things that makes us human.. and if these people have certain human abilities, the others aren't completely lost.
So.. how can they be truly and fully evil.. if they still have the ability to feel?
Clara}~
EDIT: Ok.. I just read over my last post here again.. and I do seem to contradict myself a little.. but I promise.. In my head it does make sense.. I just don't seem to be able to articulate it very well...
This thread has been quiet for some time now and I thought I would try and revive it. Of course we can continue discussing the original question posted. I would also like to discuss some of the villians within the Harry Potter series.
What characteristics/experiences of the villian make them truly horrifying? Can a villian's life experiences enhance the perceived evil in them? Specifically, we discussed a particular life experience
Compare and Contrast the villians in the Harry Potter series: Voldemort, Bellatrix, Severus Snape (yes he has characteristics), Dolores Umbridge, Lucius Malfoy.
Discuss anyone else you think would fall into the category of villan
What characteristics/experiences of the villian make them truly horrifying? Can a villian's life experiences enhance the perceived evil in them? Specifically, we discussed a particular life experience
Compare and Contrast the villians in the Harry Potter series: Voldemort, Bellatrix, Severus Snape (yes he has characteristics), Dolores Umbridge, Lucius Malfoy.
Discuss anyone else you think would fall into the category of villan
Thank you Amanda for that! 
I believe that the life one leads affects their personality and their evolving into either "good", moral people or "bad" ones. Sometimes, the experiences we have are responsible for our turning into what is called villain.
For example, Voldemort grew up into an orphanage and this made him feel like he was dumped or unwanted. So, when he discovered he was some sort of "special" he tried to get the best out of it and make up for everything he had to deal with. I can't totally blame him. However, someone could say that Harry was the same. His parents were dead, he was left with his horrible uncles and he was dreaming of special powers himself. Despite of these though, he didn't turn into a mean kid. He was kind and caring and he would never do harm with his powers. So, I think that the difference lies in their natural bent, if we can call it that.
As for the different villains developped in the series...I think JKR has covered every aspect of it. Voldemort is the ultimate evil, but Malfoy and Umbridge are the everyday bad people who misuse the power they have. Without it, they are nothing.
Bellatrix and Snape at a certain level, are evil because they are focused to their goals and they try to achieve this at any way. This is a different kind of evil.
I want to say a lot more actually. But I want to see what everyone else thinks.
Great points Amanda!
I believe that the life one leads affects their personality and their evolving into either "good", moral people or "bad" ones. Sometimes, the experiences we have are responsible for our turning into what is called villain.
For example, Voldemort grew up into an orphanage and this made him feel like he was dumped or unwanted. So, when he discovered he was some sort of "special" he tried to get the best out of it and make up for everything he had to deal with. I can't totally blame him. However, someone could say that Harry was the same. His parents were dead, he was left with his horrible uncles and he was dreaming of special powers himself. Despite of these though, he didn't turn into a mean kid. He was kind and caring and he would never do harm with his powers. So, I think that the difference lies in their natural bent, if we can call it that.
As for the different villains developped in the series...I think JKR has covered every aspect of it. Voldemort is the ultimate evil, but Malfoy and Umbridge are the everyday bad people who misuse the power they have. Without it, they are nothing.
Bellatrix and Snape at a certain level, are evil because they are focused to their goals and they try to achieve this at any way. This is a different kind of evil.
I want to say a lot more actually. But I want to see what everyone else thinks.
Great points Amanda!
I think the worst villain has an extremely pronounced callousness and recklessness and they dont care who they kill as long as it helps even a tiny bit in the fulfillment of their selfish desires.
Actually scratch that, perhaps the greatest evil is done through betrayal of loved ones for your own gain, like Pettigrew. I cant imagine a worse evil than being betrayed by someone I love in such a horrible way. So in my opinion Wormtail is the worst villain in the HP series because of his betrayal to save himself. He was blinded by his will to survive and would stop at nothing to survive the war even if it meant the lives of some of his best friends and their baby.
Actually scratch that, perhaps the greatest evil is done through betrayal of loved ones for your own gain, like Pettigrew. I cant imagine a worse evil than being betrayed by someone I love in such a horrible way. So in my opinion Wormtail is the worst villain in the HP series because of his betrayal to save himself. He was blinded by his will to survive and would stop at nothing to survive the war even if it meant the lives of some of his best friends and their baby.
You do have a point there HJP/HJG_TrueLove. (Welcome by the way! Pop by the welcome thread to introduce yourself! )
What Peter did was one of the most horrible acts a man can do. Betrayal is one of the things that hurt the most, especially when betrayal led to murder. However, without trying to support him or his acts, we have to admit that Peter had psychological issues. He was the one to be ignored. He was one of the famous people, but he was never really treated as one of them. He was nothing special in comparison to James, Sirius or Lupin. Thus, when he was offered the chance to do something "great", to be someone on his own, to have an identity (even if this identity was being someone else's follower), he grabbed it in an instant. Without realising that this was no real solution to his problems. He was nothing more than an incapable servant. He was being used by Voldemort as well. Overall, he was never really appreciated in his life. That's why he turned into a mouse. Mice can do good but noone ever sees it this way.
)What Peter did was one of the most horrible acts a man can do. Betrayal is one of the things that hurt the most, especially when betrayal led to murder. However, without trying to support him or his acts, we have to admit that Peter had psychological issues. He was the one to be ignored. He was one of the famous people, but he was never really treated as one of them. He was nothing special in comparison to James, Sirius or Lupin. Thus, when he was offered the chance to do something "great", to be someone on his own, to have an identity (even if this identity was being someone else's follower), he grabbed it in an instant. Without realising that this was no real solution to his problems. He was nothing more than an incapable servant. He was being used by Voldemort as well. Overall, he was never really appreciated in his life. That's why he turned into a mouse. Mice can do good but noone ever sees it this way.
You know what I found interesting is that most people can't stand Voldemort because of the supreme evil that flows out of his body however thinking back to the premiere of the OOTP and the introduction of Dolores Umbridge to the series brings up some questions.
I recalled the mere sight of her character brought little hisses from the audience. When she got more dispicable by enjoying her torture of Harry and the rest of the DA, there were a couple of 'boos' but when she said things like Harry deserved to be punished and he knew it, or when she slapped him for not cooperating or when (and this was very pronounced in the theater) she was willing to use the Cruciatus curse on Harry even though she was a Ministry Official and knew it was illegal (like we needed Hermione to point this out for us), the audience simply went crazy. A couple people called her the name Molly Weasley called Bellatrix in Deathly Hallows, someone behind me threw popcorn at the screen, and genereally there was a lot of murmerings and mumblings about how they hated her.
What is it that makes the audience react that way, in a worse way, to Umbridge in comparison to Evil incarnate Voldemort?
In my opinion, it is because she does not where her evilness in the open like Voldemort and the Death Eaters. She has a respectable job in a position of power. She is like a politican. She doesn't really stand behind one candidate...she flipflops, even backing Voldemort and pretending to be pureblood. Imagine how Voldemort would have felt and what he would have done to her had he discovered she was passing herself off as a pureblood...his reletive no less and using the locket that was supposed to be hidden in a cave?
She uses her power to supress other magical creatures and limit them. She believes in her own superiority to them.
Perhaps then this is the answer...that the greatest evil is simply the ability of one to believe they are superior to all. Because of this belief, many justify the murder and torture of innocents and inferiors.
I like what was said about Peter and being betrayed by a loved one. However, we are all hurt by the ones we love. Sometimes it is just a bad choice. That doesn't make them evil.
This wasn't just a bad choice on Pettigrews part. He hid. He could have faced the music from his friends Sirius and Remus but he didn't own up to his choice. And then he willingly went back into the employ of Voldemort being instrumental in bringing about Voldemorts temporary and then permament body. He was the guardian of the prisioners at Malfoy Manner. What is evil about someone like Wormtail is that he knew he was wrong and yet he went back for more. Why? Because he was a coward. He didn't have the confidence in his own abilities as a competent wizard although judging from the magic he was able to perform, including the Avada Kedavera that killed Cedric, he was a very able wizard.
I recalled the mere sight of her character brought little hisses from the audience. When she got more dispicable by enjoying her torture of Harry and the rest of the DA, there were a couple of 'boos' but when she said things like Harry deserved to be punished and he knew it, or when she slapped him for not cooperating or when (and this was very pronounced in the theater) she was willing to use the Cruciatus curse on Harry even though she was a Ministry Official and knew it was illegal (like we needed Hermione to point this out for us), the audience simply went crazy. A couple people called her the name Molly Weasley called Bellatrix in Deathly Hallows, someone behind me threw popcorn at the screen, and genereally there was a lot of murmerings and mumblings about how they hated her.
What is it that makes the audience react that way, in a worse way, to Umbridge in comparison to Evil incarnate Voldemort?
In my opinion, it is because she does not where her evilness in the open like Voldemort and the Death Eaters. She has a respectable job in a position of power. She is like a politican. She doesn't really stand behind one candidate...she flipflops, even backing Voldemort and pretending to be pureblood. Imagine how Voldemort would have felt and what he would have done to her had he discovered she was passing herself off as a pureblood...his reletive no less and using the locket that was supposed to be hidden in a cave?
She uses her power to supress other magical creatures and limit them. She believes in her own superiority to them.
Perhaps then this is the answer...that the greatest evil is simply the ability of one to believe they are superior to all. Because of this belief, many justify the murder and torture of innocents and inferiors.
I like what was said about Peter and being betrayed by a loved one. However, we are all hurt by the ones we love. Sometimes it is just a bad choice. That doesn't make them evil.
This wasn't just a bad choice on Pettigrews part. He hid. He could have faced the music from his friends Sirius and Remus but he didn't own up to his choice. And then he willingly went back into the employ of Voldemort being instrumental in bringing about Voldemorts temporary and then permament body. He was the guardian of the prisioners at Malfoy Manner. What is evil about someone like Wormtail is that he knew he was wrong and yet he went back for more. Why? Because he was a coward. He didn't have the confidence in his own abilities as a competent wizard although judging from the magic he was able to perform, including the Avada Kedavera that killed Cedric, he was a very able wizard.
Somehow, I always disliked more Umbridge than Voldemort. I can actually say I hate her. I can't understand how it's even possible to hate an imaginary character, but it happens! 
Voldemort is more respected in comparison to Umbridge. He did horrible things, killed and tortured, but he'd never abuse verbally someone. He'd just kill them. Umbridge represents the kind of people I never want to meet. These people that abuse their power. These people that feel superior to everyone else just because they were given greater liberty to act. They don't deserve our attention.
In a weird way, Umbridge was a lot like Peter. They both had power once and they used it to do bad actions. They had masters to obey, and once they lost their high position, they'd do anything to be saved. Remember how Peter begged Harry? Or how Umbridge tried to alter everything she said the moment her life was at threat? They are very similar; both disgusting and appalling.
Voldemort is more respected in comparison to Umbridge. He did horrible things, killed and tortured, but he'd never abuse verbally someone. He'd just kill them. Umbridge represents the kind of people I never want to meet. These people that abuse their power. These people that feel superior to everyone else just because they were given greater liberty to act. They don't deserve our attention.
In a weird way, Umbridge was a lot like Peter. They both had power once and they used it to do bad actions. They had masters to obey, and once they lost their high position, they'd do anything to be saved. Remember how Peter begged Harry? Or how Umbridge tried to alter everything she said the moment her life was at threat? They are very similar; both disgusting and appalling.
This is a good question! I never really thought about it before.
What characteristics/experiences of the villian make them truly horrifying? Can a villian's life experiences enhance the perceived evil in them?
In my opinion, a villan that terrifies me most is one who can commit cruel acts and not feel guilty or have any second thoughts on it. LV would terrify me, because he kills (ed) mercilessly, not a single time did he show any mercy at all. I think that LV/Tom's childhood had some to do with his evil. He was never loved, so he never felt it himself. He was considered an outcast, because he made strange things happen and frightened the other children. I'm not really sure at which point he turned evil, but I'm pretty sure that his childhood had a lot to do with it. He treated others as he was treated, if not worse.
Now, a point was made by nevillesgirl about Umbridge. It appears that some people think of her as evil. I would not call it that, but I would call it being a very "bad" or "mean" person. I would not call the way she acted evil, but I think it was twisted. I wish I knew more about her, though. Then I could make a final decision on whether or not her life experiences made her as bad as she was. Maybe her parents were cruel, but I don't think we'll ever know.
As a conclusion, I think that the ability to commit cruel acts without a second thought makes a villan truly horrifying. I also think that their background can enhance the evil in them, but not all of the time. Sometimes people just turn bad. I have known people to go from preppy and happy with their lives to goth and cutting themsevles. Some of them had absolutely nothing wrong in their personal lives.
What characteristics/experiences of the villian make them truly horrifying? Can a villian's life experiences enhance the perceived evil in them?
In my opinion, a villan that terrifies me most is one who can commit cruel acts and not feel guilty or have any second thoughts on it. LV would terrify me, because he kills (ed) mercilessly, not a single time did he show any mercy at all. I think that LV/Tom's childhood had some to do with his evil. He was never loved, so he never felt it himself. He was considered an outcast, because he made strange things happen and frightened the other children. I'm not really sure at which point he turned evil, but I'm pretty sure that his childhood had a lot to do with it. He treated others as he was treated, if not worse.
Now, a point was made by nevillesgirl about Umbridge. It appears that some people think of her as evil. I would not call it that, but I would call it being a very "bad" or "mean" person. I would not call the way she acted evil, but I think it was twisted. I wish I knew more about her, though. Then I could make a final decision on whether or not her life experiences made her as bad as she was. Maybe her parents were cruel, but I don't think we'll ever know.
As a conclusion, I think that the ability to commit cruel acts without a second thought makes a villan truly horrifying. I also think that their background can enhance the evil in them, but not all of the time. Sometimes people just turn bad. I have known people to go from preppy and happy with their lives to goth and cutting themsevles. Some of them had absolutely nothing wrong in their personal lives.
I have a question that hopefully will get this thread going again...
Which villain would scare you more...one who feels no remorse after killing, or one who feels happy/elated after killing? Is there a big enough difference to make that decision?
After thinking about it for a little bit, I've realized that there isn't too much of a difference. However, I feel like the villain who commits murder and doesn't feel remorse could be a professional (such as a hit man or something), where as a murderer who kills and feels elated is more along the lines of a serial killer/crazy guy,...what does the Dueling Club think?
-Nick
HJP
Which villain would scare you more...one who feels no remorse after killing, or one who feels happy/elated after killing? Is there a big enough difference to make that decision?
After thinking about it for a little bit, I've realized that there isn't too much of a difference. However, I feel like the villain who commits murder and doesn't feel remorse could be a professional (such as a hit man or something), where as a murderer who kills and feels elated is more along the lines of a serial killer/crazy guy,
...what does the Dueling Club think?-Nick
HJP
I see no great difference in these two as well. In the end, it doesn't matter whether someone feels remorse or is happy after killing someone, cause this person is already dead. Nothing can change that. Even if the killer felt guilty afterwards, he could not bring back that person, and he could not make their family/friends feel better. The damage is done.
However, I would be more scared of the one that's happy. This person probably has psychological issues, cause normally people don't feel happy when committing such an act. So I guess that this person is seriously ill. Like Voldemort who felt some kind of rush before he killed someone. It's almost like an addiction.
However, I would be more scared of the one that's happy. This person probably has psychological issues, cause normally people don't feel happy when committing such an act. So I guess that this person is seriously ill. Like Voldemort who felt some kind of rush before he killed someone. It's almost like an addiction.
QUOTE(Harry James Potter @ Jul 22 2008, 08:25 PM) [snapback]522879[/snapback]
Which villain would scare you more...one who feels no remorse after killing, or one who feels happy/elated after killing? Is there a big enough difference to make that decision?
QUOTE(alkisti @ Aug 5 2008, 05:49 AM) [snapback]526871[/snapback]
However, I would be more scared of the one that's happy. This person probably has psychological issues, cause normally people don't feel happy when committing such an act. So I guess that this person is seriously ill. Like Voldemort who felt some kind of rush before he killed someone. It's almost like an addiction.
I can understand where you are coming from Alkisti, especially when you say that this person probably has psychological issues. Consider however that normal people don't exactly feel nothing after committing such a heinous act either. I suppose the way I see this very interesting question is that if a person is feeling happy, at least they are feeling something. I would hope that would mean that if he can feel happy, then he can change a feel guilt or grief at some point.
Both of these extreme examples leave me feeling cold. I mean both scenerios have a person who would go on a killing spree with complete disregard for how many lives are lost.
QUOTE
QUOTE(Harry James Potter @ Jul 22 2008, 08:25 PM) [snapback]522879[/snapback]
Which villain would scare you more...one who feels no remorse after killing, or one who feels happy/elated after killing? Is there a big enough difference to make that decision?
Which villain would scare you more...one who feels no remorse after killing, or one who feels happy/elated after killing? Is there a big enough difference to make that decision?
I look at LV as the type of villain who feels no remorse... all his actions are a means to an end, and if someone is hurt or killed in the process it's "just business, nothing personal". Remember that Harry tried to get him to feel some remorse for his actions so that his soul might be saved, yet LV laughed at that and could not fathom feeling remorse for any of his actions. He felt justified in what he did. (I am in no way condoning LV's actions, just simplifying them). LV's actions were in the open and he did not hide his agenda. Perhaps the DEs were secretive about who they were, but they did not hide the fact that it was LV behind their actions.
As for someone who is happy/elated after killing (or hurting) that goes beyond furthering one's own agenda. I see Umbridge falling into this category if she ever got around to killing someone. She not only justified what she did (to further the MoM's agenda) she ENJOYED the pain and suffering she inflicted. She got some sort of sick pleasure out of making people hurt. In having Harry "write" lines, banning anything fun at Hogwarts, serving on the muggle-born inquisition panel. Anything that caused others pain and suffering seemed to please her to no end. However, she hid behind her authority to justify her actions. Because she was working for the MoM and under the orders of the Minister she was never seen as the bad guy. She used her authority and influence to gain even more power to cause subversive pain and suffering.
So, between the two it's a toss up of who's MORE evil but I'd go with Umbridge. With LV you knew WHO you were up against and what you were fighting. There was a definite good vs. evil. With Umbridge you had to "fight city hall". She was one of the good guys, or at least she was protected by the good guys. Unless someone came in to power that saw her for what she really was, she was at liberty to continue her reign of terror unchecked.
What makes the most evil villain i my opinion is an inability to love or understand love, remorse and someone who takes pride in the pain of others. Jo succeeded in creating a truly evil enemy for Harry - an enemy made more dangerous by his far removal from humans and their emotions.
Which villain would scare you more...one who feels no remorse after killing, or one who feels happy/elated after killing? Is there a big enough difference to make that decision?
That is pretty hard to say. It almost comes to the same thing. Both types would have no doubts about doing it again. I would almost say thte one who feels happy and elated is worse because they would then have a desire to fulfil while the one who feels no remorse would not hesitate to kill anyone in their way but would probably not go out and kill for fun. But I don't see a big enough difference to make a decision between them because they are pretty much as bad as each other.
Which villain would scare you more...one who feels no remorse after killing, or one who feels happy/elated after killing? Is there a big enough difference to make that decision?
That is pretty hard to say. It almost comes to the same thing. Both types would have no doubts about doing it again. I would almost say thte one who feels happy and elated is worse because they would then have a desire to fulfil while the one who feels no remorse would not hesitate to kill anyone in their way but would probably not go out and kill for fun. But I don't see a big enough difference to make a decision between them because they are pretty much as bad as each other.
What characteristics/experiences of the villian make them truly horrifying? Can a villian's life experiences enhance the perceived evil in them?
A person who doesn't even need a reason to hurt somebody. They don't need a reason to kill a city or cause buildings to explode. Somebody who is doing harm to other people for the sake of it. Someone who just wants to watch people get hurt. That truly terrifies me.
I absolutely think someone's life can enhance the evil in them. If they were abandoned, abused, or suffocated (not literally) by their parents, can make them mad and crazy.
Which villain would scare you more...one who feels no remorse after killing, or one who feels happy/elated after killing? Is there a big enough difference to make that decision?
I don't think there is a huge difference between the two. Both of them are suggesting that the villain has no heart or conscience. Although I think someone who feels happy after killing could be scarier. If they become happy by killing, they could kill anybody to please themselves. If they don't fell any remorse though, I don't think it suggests that they will kill for the sake of it. Only that when it is necessary (and I don't think killing is ever necessary), they won't feel anything after killing.
A person who doesn't even need a reason to hurt somebody. They don't need a reason to kill a city or cause buildings to explode. Somebody who is doing harm to other people for the sake of it. Someone who just wants to watch people get hurt. That truly terrifies me.
I absolutely think someone's life can enhance the evil in them. If they were abandoned, abused, or suffocated (not literally) by their parents, can make them mad and crazy.
Which villain would scare you more...one who feels no remorse after killing, or one who feels happy/elated after killing? Is there a big enough difference to make that decision?
I don't think there is a huge difference between the two. Both of them are suggesting that the villain has no heart or conscience. Although I think someone who feels happy after killing could be scarier. If they become happy by killing, they could kill anybody to please themselves. If they don't fell any remorse though, I don't think it suggests that they will kill for the sake of it. Only that when it is necessary (and I don't think killing is ever necessary), they won't feel anything after killing.
Time for a new question!
Let's say you could do any immoral or illegal act in the HP world. Which act would that be, and why would you do it? Does evil remain evil if noone finds out about it? In which case would you justify murder in the world of our favourite magician?
I know that's more than one question, so feel free to answer to any of these questions...or come up with your own!
Let's say you could do any immoral or illegal act in the HP world. Which act would that be, and why would you do it? Does evil remain evil if noone finds out about it? In which case would you justify murder in the world of our favourite magician?
I know that's more than one question, so feel free to answer to any of these questions...or come up with your own!
Well, an evil villain has to kill or try to kill to be sinister. They usually have a desire for power. ex. Hitler, Voldemort,
Of course life exp. change the way people look at things. If no one cared about you when you were a kid and you were always bullied, you would want revenge, right? If no one ever talked to you you'd think that life is all about taking care of yourself.
Of course life exp. change the way people look at things. If no one cared about you when you were a kid and you were always bullied, you would want revenge, right? If no one ever talked to you you'd think that life is all about taking care of yourself.
If you can't tell, discussing evil and why people do evil things fascinates me...
Let's say you could do any immoral or illegal act in the HP world. Which act would that be, and why would you do it? Does evil remain evil if noone finds out about it? In which case would you justify murder in the world of our favourite magician?
It is really, really hard to justify murder in my eyes. I guess that the only way you could justify it is if it was necessary. Maybe not in self-defense but if not doing so would mean that other people got hurt. Kind of like the balancing one person against many debate. If committing a single murder here would save many people, is it right? That would be hard, but I think that I could do it then.
Even if no one finds out about evil, it's still evil because the person who committed it knows what happened and knows that it was wrong. If you know that what you did is wrong and you do it anyway, it's still wrong and "evil," even if no one else but you finds out about it. And wouldn't your victim know about it? Usually, if you commit evil, it's against a specific person or group of people. But even if it was something more generalized and vague, where there isn't a specific "victim" you can point to, you still know that you're doing wrong.
I'm not sure that I could do any immoral or illegal act in the HP world.
At least, not one committed through magical means! I guess that what I would be most tempted to do is either Legilimens (sp?), which is certainly not the most ethical thing to do, or the Imperius Curse (which is Unforgivable! But I have reasons, I promise!). With Legilimens, I think that sometimes reading someone's mind would be very helpful. What if doing so prevented something else from happening? (Like you're in line at the bank...no, obviously not Gringotts!...and you read the mind of the person ahead of you and realize that they're going to try to rob the bank, so you do something to stop them or alert the police). Or even for selfish reasons, like finding out if someone likes you or not. It's hard to justify, though, because a person's thoughts should be their own. If nowhere else, your own mind deserves privacy. Likewise, Imperio is hard to justify. Controlling someone else's actions...I guess that I would only do that, though, if it was necessary to save other people. I can think of several times in HP where one of the Death Eaters could have used a good dose of the Imperius Curse! I guess the problem there is that the more evil someone is, usually the stronger their will is, and in that case, the Imperius Curse would be pointless, since it wouldn't work. But alas, it's a good thought, anyway!
What characteristics/experiences of the villain make them truly horrifying? Can a villain's life experiences enhance the perceived evil in them?
When people are psychopathic. I think that's what makes people, and villains, horrifying. When you feel no remorse for what you do, and when you can't even understand how other people are "real" (to remember Patrick Hockstetter in the book It, if anyone's read that). I mean, usually, someone still has a shred of "humanity" in them, and you can appeal to that, like if someone wants to hurt or kill you. You can try to empathize with them and make yourself seem more human, and then sometimes they don't want to hurt you as badly as they originally did. But a psychopath? You can't do that. They don't have that. They just want to do what they want to do, and it doesn't matter who you are. You just don't matter to them. And that thought is just scary.
I think that a villain's life experiences can enhance the evil in them. When horrible things happen to you, it tends to change you. And I don't think that it usually changes you so that you perpetrate horrible things on others, but it is possible...think about all the people who abuse their children or spouses after they were abused themselves. I know that there are probably far more people who vow to never abuse their children or domestic partners, but there are also the people who do. Does that make them less evil just because it happened to them? I don't think so, but it does provide a partial explanation of why.
Which villain would scare you more...one who feels no remorse after killing, or one who feels happy/elated after killing? Is there a big enough difference to make that decision?
I'm honestly not sure. There are reasons to be more scared of either. Someone who feels no remorse...it's hard to understand someone like that. You can't appeal to their "better nature" because I don't think that they have one. They'll just murder. On the other hand, if they don't get a "thrill" from it, then I would think that you would have to be in their way or a means to an end for them to kill you. I suppose that could provide some small measure of comfort.
Someone who feels happy or elated after killing--I guess that at least you know they experience emotions...That would be frightening to witness, though. They would kill for the pure, simple pleasure of it, and might even go out of their way to kill someone just so they could experience that thrill again.
I guess maybe it would be more a question of who are you more likely to run afoul of. And either one would be just plain scary!
Let's say you could do any immoral or illegal act in the HP world. Which act would that be, and why would you do it? Does evil remain evil if noone finds out about it? In which case would you justify murder in the world of our favourite magician?
It is really, really hard to justify murder in my eyes. I guess that the only way you could justify it is if it was necessary. Maybe not in self-defense but if not doing so would mean that other people got hurt. Kind of like the balancing one person against many debate. If committing a single murder here would save many people, is it right? That would be hard, but I think that I could do it then.
Even if no one finds out about evil, it's still evil because the person who committed it knows what happened and knows that it was wrong. If you know that what you did is wrong and you do it anyway, it's still wrong and "evil," even if no one else but you finds out about it. And wouldn't your victim know about it? Usually, if you commit evil, it's against a specific person or group of people. But even if it was something more generalized and vague, where there isn't a specific "victim" you can point to, you still know that you're doing wrong.
I'm not sure that I could do any immoral or illegal act in the HP world.
At least, not one committed through magical means! I guess that what I would be most tempted to do is either Legilimens (sp?), which is certainly not the most ethical thing to do, or the Imperius Curse (which is Unforgivable! But I have reasons, I promise!). With Legilimens, I think that sometimes reading someone's mind would be very helpful. What if doing so prevented something else from happening? (Like you're in line at the bank...no, obviously not Gringotts!...and you read the mind of the person ahead of you and realize that they're going to try to rob the bank, so you do something to stop them or alert the police). Or even for selfish reasons, like finding out if someone likes you or not. It's hard to justify, though, because a person's thoughts should be their own. If nowhere else, your own mind deserves privacy. Likewise, Imperio is hard to justify. Controlling someone else's actions...I guess that I would only do that, though, if it was necessary to save other people. I can think of several times in HP where one of the Death Eaters could have used a good dose of the Imperius Curse! I guess the problem there is that the more evil someone is, usually the stronger their will is, and in that case, the Imperius Curse would be pointless, since it wouldn't work. But alas, it's a good thought, anyway!What characteristics/experiences of the villain make them truly horrifying? Can a villain's life experiences enhance the perceived evil in them?
When people are psychopathic. I think that's what makes people, and villains, horrifying. When you feel no remorse for what you do, and when you can't even understand how other people are "real" (to remember Patrick Hockstetter in the book It, if anyone's read that). I mean, usually, someone still has a shred of "humanity" in them, and you can appeal to that, like if someone wants to hurt or kill you. You can try to empathize with them and make yourself seem more human, and then sometimes they don't want to hurt you as badly as they originally did. But a psychopath? You can't do that. They don't have that. They just want to do what they want to do, and it doesn't matter who you are. You just don't matter to them. And that thought is just scary.
I think that a villain's life experiences can enhance the evil in them. When horrible things happen to you, it tends to change you. And I don't think that it usually changes you so that you perpetrate horrible things on others, but it is possible...think about all the people who abuse their children or spouses after they were abused themselves. I know that there are probably far more people who vow to never abuse their children or domestic partners, but there are also the people who do. Does that make them less evil just because it happened to them? I don't think so, but it does provide a partial explanation of why.
Which villain would scare you more...one who feels no remorse after killing, or one who feels happy/elated after killing? Is there a big enough difference to make that decision?
I'm honestly not sure. There are reasons to be more scared of either. Someone who feels no remorse...it's hard to understand someone like that. You can't appeal to their "better nature" because I don't think that they have one. They'll just murder. On the other hand, if they don't get a "thrill" from it, then I would think that you would have to be in their way or a means to an end for them to kill you. I suppose that could provide some small measure of comfort.
Someone who feels happy or elated after killing--I guess that at least you know they experience emotions...That would be frightening to witness, though. They would kill for the pure, simple pleasure of it, and might even go out of their way to kill someone just so they could experience that thrill again.
I guess maybe it would be more a question of who are you more likely to run afoul of. And either one would be just plain scary!
Time for a new question:
This one is a little bit harder, but I think it's going to be fun to think about!
If you could penalize any action in the HP world, meaning if you could turn any action into a crime against the law, which action would that be, and why would you choose that one?
We all accept murder, robbery etc as crimes in the HP world, but what else could we consider as a crime?
Think about it!
This one is a little bit harder, but I think it's going to be fun to think about!
If you could penalize any action in the HP world, meaning if you could turn any action into a crime against the law, which action would that be, and why would you choose that one?
We all accept murder, robbery etc as crimes in the HP world, but what else could we consider as a crime?
Think about it!
If you could penalize any action in the HP world, meaning if you could turn any action into a crime against the law, which action would that be, and why would you choose that one?
This is a really hard question!
*puts thinking cap on* Hmm...I think that if I could penalize any action in the HP world, it would be...the use of ANY sort of love spell, potion, or anything that alters the emotions of one person towards the user. Even though I think that's already illegal. I really think it ought to be, though, because it's one thing to cast a Cheering Charm on someone to try to cheer them up, but it's another thing entirely to alter how they feel towards you. If they don't like you, they don't like you. You shouldn't use a spell to make it so that they do. It's unethical and wrong. Besides, wouldn't you rather get to know them and see if YOU can change their attitude towards you? Otherwise, you'd just be haunted by the knowledge that they only like you, love you, or whatever because of the spell you put on them, not because they actually, genuinely, feel that emotion. Messing with someone's feelings ought to be almost on a level with the Unforgivables, in my opinion.
This is a really hard question!
*puts thinking cap on* Hmm...I think that if I could penalize any action in the HP world, it would be...the use of ANY sort of love spell, potion, or anything that alters the emotions of one person towards the user. Even though I think that's already illegal. I really think it ought to be, though, because it's one thing to cast a Cheering Charm on someone to try to cheer them up, but it's another thing entirely to alter how they feel towards you. If they don't like you, they don't like you. You shouldn't use a spell to make it so that they do. It's unethical and wrong. Besides, wouldn't you rather get to know them and see if YOU can change their attitude towards you? Otherwise, you'd just be haunted by the knowledge that they only like you, love you, or whatever because of the spell you put on them, not because they actually, genuinely, feel that emotion. Messing with someone's feelings ought to be almost on a level with the Unforgivables, in my opinion.
If you could penalize any action in the HP world, meaning if you could turn any action into a crime against the law, which action would that be, and why would you choose that one?
I'd say banning the making of polyjuice potion - we all know the damage it caused in the Goblet Of Fire - and stealing other people's identities will always cause chaos!
I'd say banning the making of polyjuice potion - we all know the damage it caused in the Goblet Of Fire - and stealing other people's identities will always cause chaos!
The one with no love or mercy for anything make the most ruthless, vile, villain.
Mod Edit: Please note that one liners and short posts of less than 3 lines of standard text are not allowed in this particular forum. Please elaborate in future. Thanks
Mod Edit: Please note that one liners and short posts of less than 3 lines of standard text are not allowed in this particular forum. Please elaborate in future. Thanks
I was wondering...let's say you were wizards, living in England, during Lord Voldemort's domination (the first one). What would you be afraid of the most? I mean, which of his traits would scare you more? His dreams of world domination forever? His ruthless murders? The level of the dark magic he used?
I believe that every person fears a dictator (cause that's what Voldemort was) for different reasons.
If you lived in a foreign country, do you think you'd deal easier with his domination and everything else he did in order to get there?
Also, were people braver during the second War?
I believe that every person fears a dictator (cause that's what Voldemort was) for different reasons.
If you lived in a foreign country, do you think you'd deal easier with his domination and everything else he did in order to get there?
Also, were people braver during the second War?
What would you be afraid of the most? I mean, which of his traits would scare you more? His dreams of world domination forever? His ruthless murders? The level of the dark magic he used?
I'd say all of them because they all pretty much go together. LV's thoughts of world domination could only be achieved by killing those who didn't see and didn't want what he did. In order to scare people the most and reign over everyone he had to have the highest level of dark magic. If he didn't he could have been competing for the same cause.
Luckily DD killed Grindewald, the wizarding world was safe from two dark wizards that wanted the same thing.
If you lived in a foreign country, do you think you'd deal easier with his domination and everything else he did in order to get there?
No, LV traveled all over the world. He carried his vision of a pure blood society everywhere he went. The fact of the matter is that Voldemort killed a lot of people and not all of them lived in London, England. It's a little different if the dictator was a muggle, they can only rip their own country apart for fear of retaliation. But it doesn't make it anymore right to look the other way if you're not in danger.
Also, were people braver during the second War?
I don't think they were braver in the first war. I think the ones that were willing to give their lives to stop Voldemort died doing that vary thing. Everyone started to live comfortably knowing LV was gone.
The second time around became more difficult when the ministry refused to believe he was back, dragged Harry and Dumbledore through the mud, and let LV take control. People didn't know what to think, there was mass confusion and chaos. I think it was ten times worse the second time around and those that would have tried to stop it were already gone.
Dawn
I'd say all of them because they all pretty much go together. LV's thoughts of world domination could only be achieved by killing those who didn't see and didn't want what he did. In order to scare people the most and reign over everyone he had to have the highest level of dark magic. If he didn't he could have been competing for the same cause.
Luckily DD killed Grindewald, the wizarding world was safe from two dark wizards that wanted the same thing.
If you lived in a foreign country, do you think you'd deal easier with his domination and everything else he did in order to get there?
No, LV traveled all over the world. He carried his vision of a pure blood society everywhere he went. The fact of the matter is that Voldemort killed a lot of people and not all of them lived in London, England. It's a little different if the dictator was a muggle, they can only rip their own country apart for fear of retaliation. But it doesn't make it anymore right to look the other way if you're not in danger.
Also, were people braver during the second War?
I don't think they were braver in the first war. I think the ones that were willing to give their lives to stop Voldemort died doing that vary thing. Everyone started to live comfortably knowing LV was gone.
The second time around became more difficult when the ministry refused to believe he was back, dragged Harry and Dumbledore through the mud, and let LV take control. People didn't know what to think, there was mass confusion and chaos. I think it was ten times worse the second time around and those that would have tried to stop it were already gone.
Dawn
The thing that would scare me the most about Voldemorts takeover is the fact that it was virtually silent. There was no huge battles, just one second it was normal and the next everything changed!
One thing that really makes Voldemort seem evil is that he has about the same background as Harry, who is the hero. It gives the appearence that there was really no reason for him to be so terrible- he just is.
One thing that really makes Voldemort seem evil is that he has about the same background as Harry, who is the hero. It gives the appearence that there was really no reason for him to be so terrible- he just is.
What would you be afraid of the most? I mean, which of his traits would scare you more? His dreams of world domination forever? His ruthless murders? The level of the dark magic he used?
Voldemort was very slick at the way he went about doing things. Even though he did have his hand in the killing of alot of people. most of the time he had his DE's doing it for him...In alot of ways Voldemort was like Hitler. He was an extremely well known powerful individual, he wanted to dominate and rule the wizarding world, and he wanted to rid the Wizarding world of muggles and those that were not of pure blood desent. Hitler did the same thing in wanting to take over the world, have blue eyed blondes in his ranks and trying to rid the world of a particluar religion. For the most part everything about Voldemort is scary, he is too mush like Hitler once was, and thank Goodness both were taken down by powers much bigger than themselves. Yes Voldemort was sneaky indeed and smart in the beginning but he got dumb in the end he under estimated his rival Harry.
If you lived in a foreign country, do you think you'd deal easier with his domination and everything else he did in order to get there?
No, it would not make it any easier, Voldemort is like a dictator, trying to take over the world and eliminating anyone or anything that got in his way. Voldemort had ways of spreading "the word" to everyone else around the world that was siding with him, just like Hitler did in WWII. Voldemort had his "allies" occupying different countries and such and he got them over to his side by making promises to them of wizard world domination.
Also, were people braver during the second War?
War is war no matter how it's fought or who fights in it. Everyone that went up against Voldemort had to be brave to start with. They were willing to lay their own lives on the line to stop this powerful wizard from doing the inevitable, to stop him from taking full control. Yes even though Voldemort was not a muggle, he operated under the same tactics as do dictators throughout history in the muggle world. He placed fear upon people (witches and wizards) in his home country, then that fear spread throughout the wizarding world and pretty soon he had most of the wizarding world cowering at his feet. Yes he operated in the same fashion as muggle dictators did...
Voldemort was very slick at the way he went about doing things. Even though he did have his hand in the killing of alot of people. most of the time he had his DE's doing it for him...In alot of ways Voldemort was like Hitler. He was an extremely well known powerful individual, he wanted to dominate and rule the wizarding world, and he wanted to rid the Wizarding world of muggles and those that were not of pure blood desent. Hitler did the same thing in wanting to take over the world, have blue eyed blondes in his ranks and trying to rid the world of a particluar religion. For the most part everything about Voldemort is scary, he is too mush like Hitler once was, and thank Goodness both were taken down by powers much bigger than themselves. Yes Voldemort was sneaky indeed and smart in the beginning but he got dumb in the end he under estimated his rival Harry.
If you lived in a foreign country, do you think you'd deal easier with his domination and everything else he did in order to get there?
No, it would not make it any easier, Voldemort is like a dictator, trying to take over the world and eliminating anyone or anything that got in his way. Voldemort had ways of spreading "the word" to everyone else around the world that was siding with him, just like Hitler did in WWII. Voldemort had his "allies" occupying different countries and such and he got them over to his side by making promises to them of wizard world domination.
Also, were people braver during the second War?
War is war no matter how it's fought or who fights in it. Everyone that went up against Voldemort had to be brave to start with. They were willing to lay their own lives on the line to stop this powerful wizard from doing the inevitable, to stop him from taking full control. Yes even though Voldemort was not a muggle, he operated under the same tactics as do dictators throughout history in the muggle world. He placed fear upon people (witches and wizards) in his home country, then that fear spread throughout the wizarding world and pretty soon he had most of the wizarding world cowering at his feet. Yes he operated in the same fashion as muggle dictators did...
Well, it could, but not all the time. You could be right for in Star Wars there was Palpatine, who was resurrected and nearly killed Leia's second son, who was still in Leia's womb. However one could always learn and bend. Like Anakin he was burned to nearly a crisp in Episode III. However in Episode VI he saved his son's life. So they can learn.
As for Voldemort, he never fell from power. He just gained it little by little. It was the life he had to live through the orphanage was not an easy way to live life. He felt better at Hogwarts and stayed alone. He was disappointed in his parents for his father being a muggle and betraying his mother and his mother did not have any desire to keep herself alive to live for him. So he did have a hard life.
In reality it is how we live our lives and how we act upon them that determines who we are. Also evil is a point of view just as is good. So perhaps Voldemort views his work as the dark lord as a good deed for the wizarding world.
As for Voldemort, he never fell from power. He just gained it little by little. It was the life he had to live through the orphanage was not an easy way to live life. He felt better at Hogwarts and stayed alone. He was disappointed in his parents for his father being a muggle and betraying his mother and his mother did not have any desire to keep herself alive to live for him. So he did have a hard life.
In reality it is how we live our lives and how we act upon them that determines who we are. Also evil is a point of view just as is good. So perhaps Voldemort views his work as the dark lord as a good deed for the wizarding world.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.