1 Days Left to Support a Troper-Created Project : Personal Space (discuss)

History Headscratchers / HarryPotterAndTheDeathlyHallowsTheDeathlyHallows

13th May '16 11:58:24 AM QuarrelsomeChevon
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

** Also, even if he ''had'' recognized it, what's he going to use it for? Summoning his mother? She's already something of a BrokenPedestal to him, since he initially thought that if she were truly a witch, then she wouldn't have died, only to find out he was wrong. His father? Who he hated for ''abandoning'' his mother (for a decent reason, but young Tom didn't stop to consider that) and killed personally when he was just 16? Even after he found out the Elder Wand existed, he went after just to have a better wand, not due to its status as one of the Hallows.
11th May '16 3:40:52 PM QuarrelsomeChevon
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

** Was it ever stated when Dumbledore found and viewed that memory? Maybe it was a bit before he found it inside the shack, and was like, "Wait, did he say Peverell? Could that be the Resurrection Stone?" And then when he finds it, he's all like, "Holy Horcrux, it ''is'' the Resurrection Stone! I'm gonna put this ring on right now so I can use it to contact my dead sister! ...Oh, shoot, what a horrible idea!" He found the ring sometime between the fifth and sixth books, and since the question asked was "Why didn't he recognize it when Tom was at school?", that's the answer - he didn't have access to even the memory for a good look, let alone the actual ring, until Tom had already left the school.
11th May '16 2:59:05 PM QuarrelsomeChevon
Is there an issue? Send a Message



to:

** Also, how do we know Ollivander knows what the Elder Wand looks like? All he told Voldemort about it was just rumors and legends...Was there any confirmation that he's actually seen it before?
11th May '16 1:10:16 PM QuarrelsomeChevon
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

** Let's also not forget that all three brothers in the story ''died'' in due time, despite them all having the items capable of making one "Master of Death". If Voldemort had read the story, odds are he would've taken that into account.
11th May '16 9:56:03 AM QuarrelsomeChevon
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* This differs from the headscratchers posted above in that is focuses less on the specifics of wand transfer and more on this...stigma that seems to surround the Elder Wand itself. In ''The Tales of Beedle the Bard'', Dumbledore's commentary seems to suggest that only very power-hungry wizards have searched for and claimed ownership of the wand, that no witch has ever been recorded doing so, and even he states that he himself had a weakness for power when he was alive. What I'm asking is, why is the Elder Wand treated as "bad" for being powerful, and why have only combative, power-hungry people gone looking for it? There's nothing to suggest the wand itself exudes some aura that impairs people's judgement and makes them act that way, and that it's just the temperament of those who seek it out, meaning at least one ''good'' person '''not''' could be interest in the wand's uses outside of combat, yes? When it's labelled as "the most powerful wand", does that "powerful" extend to anything more than being unbeatable in a duel and being able to repair other wands?

to:

* This differs from the headscratchers posted above in that is focuses less on the specifics of wand transfer and more on this...stigma that seems to surround the Elder Wand itself. In ''The Tales of Beedle the Bard'', Dumbledore's commentary seems to suggest that only very power-hungry wizards have searched for and claimed ownership of the wand, that no witch has ever been recorded doing so, and even he states that he himself had a weakness for power when he was alive. What I'm asking is, alive...Even out of the main trio, Ron is the only one who would choose the wand first out of all three hallows. So why is the Elder Wand treated as "bad" for being powerful, and why have when it's really only combative, power-hungry power-seeking people who've ever gone looking for it? There's nothing to suggest the wand itself exudes some aura that impairs people's judgement and makes them act that way, and that way - it's just the temperament of those who seek it out, out - meaning at least one ''good'' person '''not''' could witch or wizard ''could'' be interest in the wand's uses outside of combat, yes? When it's labelled as "the most powerful wand", does that "powerful" extend to anything more than being unbeatable in a duel and being able to repair other wands?
11th May '16 9:53:11 AM QuarrelsomeChevon
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* This differs from the headscratchers posted above in that is focuses less on the specifics of wand transfer and more on this...stigma that seems to surround the Elder Wand itself. In ''The Tales of Beedle the Bard'', Dumbledore's commentary seems to suggest that only very power-hungry wizards have searched for and claimed ownership of the wand, that no witch has ever been recorded doing so, and even he states that he himself had a weakness for power when he was alive. What I'm asking is, why is the Elder Wand treated as "bad" for being powerful, and why have only combative, power-hungry people gone looking for it? There's nothing to suggest the wand itself exudes some aura that impairs people's judgement and makes them act that way, meaning at least one ''good'' person '''not''' interested in its combative abilities would've gone looking for it? When it's labelled as "the most powerful wand", does that "powerful" extend to anything more than being unbeatable in a duel and being able to repair other wands?

to:

* This differs from the headscratchers posted above in that is focuses less on the specifics of wand transfer and more on this...stigma that seems to surround the Elder Wand itself. In ''The Tales of Beedle the Bard'', Dumbledore's commentary seems to suggest that only very power-hungry wizards have searched for and claimed ownership of the wand, that no witch has ever been recorded doing so, and even he states that he himself had a weakness for power when he was alive. What I'm asking is, why is the Elder Wand treated as "bad" for being powerful, and why have only combative, power-hungry people gone looking for it? There's nothing to suggest the wand itself exudes some aura that impairs people's judgement and makes them act that way, and that it's just the temperament of those who seek it out, meaning at least one ''good'' person '''not''' interested could be interest in its combative abilities would've gone looking for it? the wand's uses outside of combat, yes? When it's labelled as "the most powerful wand", does that "powerful" extend to anything more than being unbeatable in a duel and being able to repair other wands?
11th May '16 9:49:33 AM QuarrelsomeChevon
Is there an issue? Send a Message



to:

** I think one of the requirements for allegiance to switch is that the witch or wizard has to be defeated without their consent. Harry willingly went into the forest do die, hence, Voldemort wasn't ''proving'' anything when he tried to kill him. Also, not only was Voldemort not the master of the Elder Wand at that time, but he had also tried using it to cast the Killing Curse right at the person who ''was'' the master, which may have swayed the wand's decision as well.


Added DiffLines:


* This differs from the headscratchers posted above in that is focuses less on the specifics of wand transfer and more on this...stigma that seems to surround the Elder Wand itself. In ''The Tales of Beedle the Bard'', Dumbledore's commentary seems to suggest that only very power-hungry wizards have searched for and claimed ownership of the wand, that no witch has ever been recorded doing so, and even he states that he himself had a weakness for power when he was alive. What I'm asking is, why is the Elder Wand treated as "bad" for being powerful, and why have only combative, power-hungry people gone looking for it? There's nothing to suggest the wand itself exudes some aura that impairs people's judgement and makes them act that way, meaning at least one ''good'' person '''not''' interested in its combative abilities would've gone looking for it? When it's labelled as "the most powerful wand", does that "powerful" extend to anything more than being unbeatable in a duel and being able to repair other wands?
13th Dec '15 12:29:46 PM Discar
Is there an issue? Send a Message


*** Voldemort is also ''incredibly'' arrogant. By the time he could have associated Marvolo's ring with the Deathly Hallows, he was already way down on his quest to create the horcruxes. Diverting to checking out the Deathly Hallows would be akin to admitting to himself that the plan to stay immortal via the horcruxes could be flawed.

to:

*** ** Voldemort is also ''incredibly'' arrogant. By the time he could have associated Marvolo's ring with the Deathly Hallows, he was already way down on his quest to create the horcruxes. Diverting to checking out the Deathly Hallows would be akin to admitting to himself that the plan to stay immortal via the horcruxes could be flawed.
13th Dec '15 12:15:00 PM roboe
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

*** Voldemort is also ''incredibly'' arrogant. By the time he could have associated Marvolo's ring with the Deathly Hallows, he was already way down on his quest to create the horcruxes. Diverting to checking out the Deathly Hallows would be akin to admitting to himself that the plan to stay immortal via the horcruxes could be flawed.
31st Jul '15 10:04:55 AM Discar
Is there an issue? Send a Message


*** Debatable. It's possible Dumbledore knew he'd survive based on Lily's sacrifice and Voldemort using harry's blood. Dumbeledore specifically tells Snape that Voldemort has to be the one to kill him. It's likely Harry could have been killed by anyone/thing and the part of Voldemorts soul would have been destroyed. He tells snape this as it is likely the only way harry could survive So it's very possible that Dumbledore did plan on Harry to survive, but his plan relied on Harry being willing to sacrifice himself, or Harry would not have survived. So he kept that part of the plan to himself.

to:

*** ** Debatable. It's possible Dumbledore knew he'd survive based on Lily's sacrifice and Voldemort using harry's blood. Dumbeledore specifically tells Snape that Voldemort has to be the one to kill him. It's likely Harry could have been killed by anyone/thing and the part of Voldemorts soul would have been destroyed. He tells snape this as it is likely the only way harry could survive So it's very possible that Dumbledore did plan on Harry to survive, but his plan relied on Harry being willing to sacrifice himself, or Harry would not have survived. So he kept that part of the plan to himself.



*** How do you know there are no gods of anysort. In book 7 there are Bible verses on the gravestones of the Dumbledores and the Potters. And since there is obviously an afterlife why can't death be real?
**** Bible verses prove nothing other than the fact that ''Christianity'' exists in the Harry Potter universe. Besides, if Christianity was true, Death as its own independent entity would be false anyway. JKR doesn't imply any kind of god existing throughout the series. I exclude god from the series for the same reason anyone else will exclude Fanon ideas.
**** Not to mention that, if such personification of Death actually exist in the universe, it would have shown up in the story. Also the existence of death as a sentient being/entity would clash with Horcruxes, ghosts and Dementors, since they basically defy the concept of normal 'death'.
**** It's also not clear there is an afterlife. Wizards seem to agree that there is a soul (what with Dementors and all) but the Dumbledore in the station said he didn't know what was beyond limbo - there could be nothing, just plain unknowing death. And let's not forget the whole station thing could be only Harry's hallucination (and the Dumbledore seems to agree with that). If you read closely, everything Dumbledore says in that chapter could be concluded by Harry by himself. I see the limbo scene as Harry's unconscious catching up with Dumbledore's clues.

to:

*** ** How do you know there are no gods of anysort. In book 7 there are Bible verses on the gravestones of the Dumbledores and the Potters. And since there is obviously an afterlife why can't death be real?
**** ** Bible verses prove nothing other than the fact that ''Christianity'' exists in the Harry Potter universe. Besides, if Christianity was true, Death as its own independent entity would be false anyway. JKR doesn't imply any kind of god existing throughout the series. I exclude god from the series for the same reason anyone else will exclude Fanon ideas.
**** ** Not to mention that, if such personification of Death actually exist in the universe, it would have shown up in the story. Also the existence of death as a sentient being/entity would clash with Horcruxes, ghosts and Dementors, since they basically defy the concept of normal 'death'.
**** ** It's also not clear there is an afterlife. Wizards seem to agree that there is a soul (what with Dementors and all) but the Dumbledore in the station said he didn't know what was beyond limbo - there could be nothing, just plain unknowing death. And let's not forget the whole station thing could be only Harry's hallucination (and the Dumbledore seems to agree with that). If you read closely, everything Dumbledore says in that chapter could be concluded by Harry by himself. I see the limbo scene as Harry's unconscious catching up with Dumbledore's clues.



*** But his topic of special research was methods of becoming immortal. Surely he would have encountered the Deathly Hollows in that research, you know, artifacts that were specifically said to hold power over death?

to:

*** ** But his topic of special research was methods of becoming immortal. Surely he would have encountered the Deathly Hollows in that research, you know, artifacts that were specifically said to hold power over death?



*** This is it exactly. The wand's reputation for invincibility is inflated. In fact it's not invincible at all - the one consistent thing about its entire history is that ''every one of its owners has been defeated,'' most often specifically ''because they owned the wand''.
**** To expand on this point: ''None'' of the Hallows is infallible. Moody and Dumbledore appear to see through Harry's invisibility cloak, the resurrection stone only brings back ghosts, and the elder wand is more powerful but not invincible and induces SuicidalOverconfidence in its users.
** If Grindelwald lost on purpose, then he effectively surrenders the wand's allegiance to Dumbledore - who planned to do the same thing to give the allegiance of the Elder Wand to Snape.
*** No, Dumbledore planned to die willingly at Snape's hand and thus die with the wand's allegiance and thus destroy much of its power as no one could properly use it anymore.
**** The Wand actually IS the most powerful wand in existence ... but it can be defeated/Mastered thanks to a couple of caveats. 1) Not even Mad Eye Moody is capable of maintaining CONSTANT VIGILANCE. All it takes is a moment's inattention at the wrong time and ... bye bye wand. 2) You have to know spells and how and when to use them. Having the deathstick does you NO good if you don't know the incantation for so much as a simple shield spell or refuse to use it. That basically means that in a stand-up fight between two wizards of comparable power levels, so long as the one holding the Deathstick doesn't get cocky, they win. If, however, they get cocky, or a challenger manages to surprise them in some manner, they're S.O.L.

to:

*** ** This is it exactly. The wand's reputation for invincibility is inflated. In fact it's not invincible at all - the one consistent thing about its entire history is that ''every one of its owners has been defeated,'' most often specifically ''because they owned the wand''.
**** ** To expand on this point: ''None'' of the Hallows is infallible. Moody and Dumbledore appear to see through Harry's invisibility cloak, the resurrection stone only brings back ghosts, and the elder wand is more powerful but not invincible and induces SuicidalOverconfidence in its users.
** If Grindelwald lost on purpose, then he effectively surrenders the wand's allegiance to Dumbledore - who planned to do the same thing to give the allegiance of the Elder Wand to Snape.
***
Snape.
**
No, Dumbledore planned to die willingly at Snape's hand and thus die with the wand's allegiance and thus destroy much of its power as no one could properly use it anymore.
****
anymore.
**
The Wand actually IS the most powerful wand in existence ... but it can be defeated/Mastered thanks to a couple of caveats. 1) Not even Mad Eye Moody is capable of maintaining CONSTANT VIGILANCE. All it takes is a moment's inattention at the wrong time and ... bye bye wand. 2) You have to know spells and how and when to use them. Having the deathstick does you NO good if you don't know the incantation for so much as a simple shield spell or refuse to use it. That basically means that in a stand-up fight between two wizards of comparable power levels, so long as the one holding the Deathstick doesn't get cocky, they win. If, however, they get cocky, or a challenger manages to surprise them in some manner, they're S.O.L.



*** So? They weren't the ones who cast it, they were the ones being protected. Presumably if the elder wand had been under a Fidelius and then destroyed then the Fidelius Charm would 'die' with the wand. Dumbledore's Fidelius on Sirius' house lasted past his death.
**** According to WordOfGod, when the Secret-Keeper dies, the Fidelius Charm they are linked to is weakened; ''everyone'' else who knew the secret is now like a Secret-Keeper in their turn, and able to share it with other people. That is why when Dumbledore died everyone who knew where 12 Grimmauld Place was could bring new people to it; Dumbledore had been the original Secret-Keeper for 12 Grimmauld Place.

to:

*** ** So? They weren't the ones who cast it, they were the ones being protected. Presumably if the elder wand had been under a Fidelius and then destroyed then the Fidelius Charm would 'die' with the wand. Dumbledore's Fidelius on Sirius' house lasted past his death.
**** ** According to WordOfGod, when the Secret-Keeper dies, the Fidelius Charm they are linked to is weakened; ''everyone'' else who knew the secret is now like a Secret-Keeper in their turn, and able to share it with other people. That is why when Dumbledore died everyone who knew where 12 Grimmauld Place was could bring new people to it; Dumbledore had been the original Secret-Keeper for 12 Grimmauld Place.



*** Except that there is no requirement to defeat the wielder in a ''fair'' fight; you can entirely murder him in his sleep and then loot the wand from his corpse. That is straight from the original legend about the creation of the Deathly Hallows. The one every wizarding child knows.
*** Made worse by the fact that Harry decides to get a job as an AUROR. Okay, you intend to go through the rest of your life without being ''defeated'' in battle a single time, ever, as a policeman? Even without people actively hunting him down to become the master of the Elder Wand, he's throwing himself into situations where the wand's loyalty could jump on a daily basis.
*** This troper likes to think immediately after leaving the Headmaster's office, Hermione figured this out, Disarmed Harry, handed the wand back, then Obliviated it from Ron and Harry. The best way to ensure that that the Elder Wand dies is to make sure that no one knows who has the actual loyalty. (Well, or convincing some person to attack Harry, then kill themselves.)
**** If any of those who fought in the Battle of Hogwarts are mortally wounded, but still strong enough to manage one last ''Expelliarmus'', a visit to the triage ward in the Great Hall could've sorted that out as well. Heck, Harry should've probably gone there anyway, as the Elder Wand could probably mend Dark Magic injuries like George's ear if it can fix a broken holly wand.

to:

*** ** Except that there is no requirement to defeat the wielder in a ''fair'' fight; you can entirely murder him in his sleep and then loot the wand from his corpse. That is straight from the original legend about the creation of the Deathly Hallows. The one every wizarding child knows.
*** ** Made worse by the fact that Harry decides to get a job as an AUROR. Okay, you intend to go through the rest of your life without being ''defeated'' in battle a single time, ever, as a policeman? Even without people actively hunting him down to become the master of the Elder Wand, he's throwing himself into situations where the wand's loyalty could jump on a daily basis.
*** ** This troper likes to think immediately after leaving the Headmaster's office, Hermione figured this out, Disarmed Harry, handed the wand back, then Obliviated it from Ron and Harry. The best way to ensure that that the Elder Wand dies is to make sure that no one knows who has the actual loyalty. (Well, or convincing some person to attack Harry, then kill themselves.)
**** ** If any of those who fought in the Battle of Hogwarts are mortally wounded, but still strong enough to manage one last ''Expelliarmus'', a visit to the triage ward in the Great Hall could've sorted that out as well. Heck, Harry should've probably gone there anyway, as the Elder Wand could probably mend Dark Magic injuries like George's ear if it can fix a broken holly wand.



*** Original question asker here. That seems anti-climactic :(

to:

*** ** Original question asker here. That seems anti-climactic :(



*** Why are your hands suddenly moving in such...wavery motion?

to:

*** ** Why are your hands suddenly moving in such...wavery motion?



*** It may just be that Voldemort had ''never'' been the wand's master. It went from Dumbledore to Draco to Harry. It's possible that if Harry had defeated Draco somehow, but Draco still got his hands on the Elder Wand, it would still have worked for him. Rowling is (possibly intentionally) vague on the rules of wand ownership, probably because she'd spent the last decade or so putting up with everyone questioning and picking apart every magical rule she laid down.

to:

*** ** It may just be that Voldemort had ''never'' been the wand's master. It went from Dumbledore to Draco to Harry. It's possible that if Harry had defeated Draco somehow, but Draco still got his hands on the Elder Wand, it would still have worked for him. Rowling is (possibly intentionally) vague on the rules of wand ownership, probably because she'd spent the last decade or so putting up with everyone questioning and picking apart every magical rule she laid down.



*** There are two possibilities:
**** 1: Harry never allows himself to be defeated outside of consenting duels, or defeats anyone who defeats him.
**** Or 2: Harry intends to be disarmed at some point, and then let that person be disarmed, etc, until the true Master of the Elder Wand is lost simply through lack of knowledge of who actually owns it.
**** That one's my personal take on the matter. If Harry's smart, the first thing he'll do after departing from Hogwarts is Apparate to a Muggle pub and pick a fight, until "ownership" of the Wand has passed from person to person enough that ''no one'' knows who its Master is. The Wand's power would therefore be forever consigned to be wasted on Muggles who have never even heard of it, and thus be functionally "broken."
*** Also, when it say defeated, it means: being killed, stunned or disarmed, through physical or magical action, without ones consent. Thus, Snape killing Dumbledore would not have transferred the allegiance of the wand as Dumbledore asked for it, but Harry punching Malfoy and taking the wands did.

to:

*** ** There are two possibilities:
**** ** 1: Harry never allows himself to be defeated outside of consenting duels, or defeats anyone who defeats him.
**** ** Or 2: Harry intends to be disarmed at some point, and then let that person be disarmed, etc, until the true Master of the Elder Wand is lost simply through lack of knowledge of who actually owns it.
**** ** That one's my personal take on the matter. If Harry's smart, the first thing he'll do after departing from Hogwarts is Apparate to a Muggle pub and pick a fight, until "ownership" of the Wand has passed from person to person enough that ''no one'' knows who its Master is. The Wand's power would therefore be forever consigned to be wasted on Muggles who have never even heard of it, and thus be functionally "broken."
*** ** Also, when it say defeated, it means: being killed, stunned or disarmed, through physical or magical action, without ones consent. Thus, Snape killing Dumbledore would not have transferred the allegiance of the wand as Dumbledore asked for it, but Harry punching Malfoy and taking the wands did.



*** VOLDEMORT has both the Elder Wand and a spare wand, borrowed from Rookwood for the occasion. He tosses the Elder Wand to Snape, who catches it without thinking. Voldemort cries out; "EXPELLIARMUS!" and retrieves the Elder Wand from where Snape had dropped it. "Thank you, Severus. Now go back to being my only Death Eater who hasn't managed to screw up at least one major assignment."
*** However, in any case, after killing Snape, V should've realised that the Wand still didn't perform up to specs, so something was wrong. So why doesn't he?

to:

*** ** VOLDEMORT has both the Elder Wand and a spare wand, borrowed from Rookwood for the occasion. He tosses the Elder Wand to Snape, who catches it without thinking. Voldemort cries out; "EXPELLIARMUS!" and retrieves the Elder Wand from where Snape had dropped it. "Thank you, Severus. Now go back to being my only Death Eater who hasn't managed to screw up at least one major assignment."
*** ** However, in any case, after killing Snape, V should've realised that the Wand still didn't perform up to specs, so something was wrong. So why doesn't he?



*** That doesn't really wash, because when Dumbledore went Horcrux hunting later, the second he saw the ring he was all like, "Yeah, that's the Resurrection Stone all right, better pop it on my finger oh no I instantly regret that decision." His familiarity with the Stones goes back to his own teenaged years, so are we to believe he studied the Hollows extensively, failed to recognize the Stone when he saw it, but successfully recognized it when he saw it again, decades later?
**** There's a difference between Dumbledore being alone with the ring and being able to stare at it at his leisure in the Gaunt hovel and catching glimpses of it on Riddle's finger. In the first instance he probably took a good look at it since, y'know, Horcrux, and thus saw the insignia and realized what it was; while Riddle was wearing it Dumbledore wouldn't have been looking long enough to notice.'
***** Except for the fact that even if he missed it on Riddle's finger, the next time he would have seen it is in Bob Ogden's memory when the Ministry went to the house of Gaunt because of Morfin's crimes against the Riddle family. And Gaunt was all like "“See this ring? Centuries old, Peverell coat of arms on it and everything.” You know the Peverells, the three brothers linked with the origin of the Deathly Hollows, and their coat of arms, the sign of the Deathly Hollows? And Dumbledore, the guy who had been searching for the RS for years, missed the connection between the Stone and a ring passed down to the descendants of the Peverell family and didn't recognize it when it was practically waved in front of his face?

to:

*** ** That doesn't really wash, because when Dumbledore went Horcrux hunting later, the second he saw the ring he was all like, "Yeah, that's the Resurrection Stone all right, better pop it on my finger oh no I instantly regret that decision." His familiarity with the Stones goes back to his own teenaged years, so are we to believe he studied the Hollows extensively, failed to recognize the Stone when he saw it, but successfully recognized it when he saw it again, decades later?
**** ** There's a difference between Dumbledore being alone with the ring and being able to stare at it at his leisure in the Gaunt hovel and catching glimpses of it on Riddle's finger. In the first instance he probably took a good look at it since, y'know, Horcrux, and thus saw the insignia and realized what it was; while Riddle was wearing it Dumbledore wouldn't have been looking long enough to notice.'
***** ** Except for the fact that even if he missed it on Riddle's finger, the next time he would have seen it is in Bob Ogden's memory when the Ministry went to the house of Gaunt because of Morfin's crimes against the Riddle family. And Gaunt was all like "“See this ring? Centuries old, Peverell coat of arms on it and everything.” You know the Peverells, the three brothers linked with the origin of the Deathly Hollows, and their coat of arms, the sign of the Deathly Hollows? And Dumbledore, the guy who had been searching for the RS for years, missed the connection between the Stone and a ring passed down to the descendants of the Peverell family and didn't recognize it when it was practically waved in front of his face?



*** Who says "that a cloak with a finite lifespan that keeps me hidden from everything no matter what" is even ''possible''? There's absolutely no indication throughout the books that "lesser" cloaks (such as those owned by Barty Crouch and Alastor Moody) are immune to magical detection; indeed, as Sturgis Podmore was detected under Moody's cloak by Lucius Malfoy, we could possible infer that they may be even ''less'' effective in that regard. Certainly they're likely to be Summonable, which the Third Hallow is not; in other words, the "true Cloak" has all of the strengths of its imitators and a few others besides, while sharing some but not all of their weaknesses. Any weaknesses that still exist may simply have been beyond the Peverells' power to avert.
**** Who says a wand that can beat any other is even possible? Who says a stone that can resurrect the dead is even possible? Asking whether or not something is even possible seems rather moot when you consider we're talking about a ''world of magic'' and especially a '''legendary magical artifact'''. Why ''wouldn't'' a cloak that can conceal you from everything that lasts forever be possible?
*** This seems to be an even more pertinent point with regards to the original legend: The cloak wasn't extremely special because the guy wore it his whole life, it was special because it '''hid the man from death itself.''' And yes, since the over-arching moral of that fairy tale was "You cannot escape death" then the cloak's ability to ''hide'' things had better be legendarily good, even if it can't actually make a person immortal just by wearing it.

to:

*** ** Who says "that a cloak with a finite lifespan that keeps me hidden from everything no matter what" is even ''possible''? There's absolutely no indication throughout the books that "lesser" cloaks (such as those owned by Barty Crouch and Alastor Moody) are immune to magical detection; indeed, as Sturgis Podmore was detected under Moody's cloak by Lucius Malfoy, we could possible infer that they may be even ''less'' effective in that regard. Certainly they're likely to be Summonable, which the Third Hallow is not; in other words, the "true Cloak" has all of the strengths of its imitators and a few others besides, while sharing some but not all of their weaknesses. Any weaknesses that still exist may simply have been beyond the Peverells' power to avert.
**** ** Who says a wand that can beat any other is even possible? Who says a stone that can resurrect the dead is even possible? Asking whether or not something is even possible seems rather moot when you consider we're talking about a ''world of magic'' and especially a '''legendary magical artifact'''. Why ''wouldn't'' a cloak that can conceal you from everything that lasts forever be possible?
*** ** This seems to be an even more pertinent point with regards to the original legend: The cloak wasn't extremely special because the guy wore it his whole life, it was special because it '''hid the man from death itself.''' And yes, since the over-arching moral of that fairy tale was "You cannot escape death" then the cloak's ability to ''hide'' things had better be legendarily good, even if it can't actually make a person immortal just by wearing it.



*** You're working from a false premise. The Elder Wand ''cannot'' beat any other wand without fail; in fact, it is probably the Hallow that has been outright overpowered the ''most,'' since that is one of the very few ways to take it and successfully use it. The Wand's power has been inflated by reputation just as much as the Cloak's has; it has a lot of raw magical energy, sure, most likely because it is particularly well-crafted and possesses a very unique core, but it can still be bested in a duel if the opponent is skilled enough (i.e. Dumbledore). And as for the Stone, it's the Hallow that's used the least so we don't really know much about its strengths ''or'' weaknesses, but presumably it has them. The "shades" seem to have no abilities other than speech and Dementor-protection, and fade after a while...not to mention that whole, ya know, "[[DrivenToSuicide could drive a less stable man to suicide]] out of longing" thing.

to:

*** ** You're working from a false premise. The Elder Wand ''cannot'' beat any other wand without fail; in fact, it is probably the Hallow that has been outright overpowered the ''most,'' since that is one of the very few ways to take it and successfully use it. The Wand's power has been inflated by reputation just as much as the Cloak's has; it has a lot of raw magical energy, sure, most likely because it is particularly well-crafted and possesses a very unique core, but it can still be bested in a duel if the opponent is skilled enough (i.e. Dumbledore). And as for the Stone, it's the Hallow that's used the least so we don't really know much about its strengths ''or'' weaknesses, but presumably it has them. The "shades" seem to have no abilities other than speech and Dementor-protection, and fade after a while...not to mention that whole, ya know, "[[DrivenToSuicide could drive a less stable man to suicide]] out of longing" thing.



*** I recall from ''Goblet of Fire'' that Harry was waving to Moody and silently mouthing "It's mine!", which was what prompted Moody to retrieve the Marauder's Map he had dropped; Moody had to have seen Harry explicitly in order for that to have happened. He saw Harry through the cloak.
*** Also, you say Mrs. Norris could sense Harry simply because she's a cat? So the ''Legendary Cloak of Invisibility'' can hide you from '''DEATH HIMSELF''' but it can't hide you from a '''cat'''???
**** Even if we accept that the cloak actually came from Death and isn't just a product of the Peverell's own magic power, we should remember that it's actually a part of Death's own cloak. The magic that produced it would be specific to Death, so it makes a degree of sense that it would work on him better than others.
**** It's a cloak of invisibility, it makes the user invisible, that's it's only function. Doesn't matter if Death itself can't see through it, since the wearer is still noisy and can be smelled or touched. Not only that but it's magic would have been designed only to block Death, it's the equivilent of asking why a charm that heal nosebleeds doesn't fix a broken arm, they're completely different things.
*** I think it needs mentioned that Luna never actually saw ''through'' the cloak. Her Spectre Specs let her see the "nargles" that were buzzing around Harry at the time. As for Mrs. Norris, as stated above, it is alluded that her other senses were likely what tipped her off to the prescense of an invisible Harry. In ''TheGobletOfFire'', it's directly mentioned that Harry regreted using so much of the scented soaps and foams in the prefects' bathroom, while investigating the Second Task clue. Moody's Eye? Well, that's something I hadn't considered, but it's established as [[AwesomeYetPractical Awesome, yet Practical]], so we can let it slide.

to:

*** ** I recall from ''Goblet of Fire'' that Harry was waving to Moody and silently mouthing "It's mine!", which was what prompted Moody to retrieve the Marauder's Map he had dropped; Moody had to have seen Harry explicitly in order for that to have happened. He saw Harry through the cloak.
*** ** Also, you say Mrs. Norris could sense Harry simply because she's a cat? So the ''Legendary Cloak of Invisibility'' can hide you from '''DEATH HIMSELF''' but it can't hide you from a '''cat'''???
**** ** Even if we accept that the cloak actually came from Death and isn't just a product of the Peverell's own magic power, we should remember that it's actually a part of Death's own cloak. The magic that produced it would be specific to Death, so it makes a degree of sense that it would work on him better than others.
**** ** It's a cloak of invisibility, it makes the user invisible, that's it's only function. Doesn't matter if Death itself can't see through it, since the wearer is still noisy and can be smelled or touched. Not only that but it's magic would have been designed only to block Death, it's the equivilent of asking why a charm that heal nosebleeds doesn't fix a broken arm, they're completely different things.
*** ** I think it needs mentioned that Luna never actually saw ''through'' the cloak. Her Spectre Specs let her see the "nargles" that were buzzing around Harry at the time. As for Mrs. Norris, as stated above, it is alluded that her other senses were likely what tipped her off to the prescense of an invisible Harry. In ''TheGobletOfFire'', it's directly mentioned that Harry regreted using so much of the scented soaps and foams in the prefects' bathroom, while investigating the Second Task clue. Moody's Eye? Well, that's something I hadn't considered, but it's established as [[AwesomeYetPractical Awesome, yet Practical]], so we can let it slide.



*** At this point I'd like to point out it's called the Cloak of ''Invisibility'', not the Cloak of ''Nothing Can Detect Me''. You can't reasonably expect the thing (when it's stated only to give invisibility) to hide you from anything. As for Mad-Eye seeing through it... maybe it only gave him an infrared signature on Harry, which allowed him to see Harry waving his arms when Snape was about to take the map.
*** Some things to consider in the discussion where people compare the cat hearing/sensing him and Death not finding him. 1) The whole death thing was a legend - stated outright to (probably) be untrue. So, if Peverell made the cloak himself (as DD posits) then it's still a cloak made by a human and therefore liable to not be completely infallible - how was Peverell to know that at some point in the distant future there would be an Auror so badass that he had a magical eye that could look through anything else? In the case of the cat, it does what it's supposed to do, which is hide him from Mrs. Noriss's eyes. However, she can hear him and keeps looking in his direction, because that's what cats do when they hear something: they keep watching until they find out what made the noise or get bored when they don't see anything. An intelligent cat like Mrs. Norris would probably keep looking longer. And 2)If we suppose the whole Death tale to be true, then it can still be possible - Death has more to do than scour every corner of every place where the brother could possibly be - you know, like visiting people he CAN see and taking them with him. So he's unlikely to ever be close enough to detect him in the same way that the cat detected Harry.

to:

*** ** At this point I'd like to point out it's called the Cloak of ''Invisibility'', not the Cloak of ''Nothing Can Detect Me''. You can't reasonably expect the thing (when it's stated only to give invisibility) to hide you from anything. As for Mad-Eye seeing through it... maybe it only gave him an infrared signature on Harry, which allowed him to see Harry waving his arms when Snape was about to take the map.
*** ** Some things to consider in the discussion where people compare the cat hearing/sensing him and Death not finding him. 1) The whole death thing was a legend - stated outright to (probably) be untrue. So, if Peverell made the cloak himself (as DD posits) then it's still a cloak made by a human and therefore liable to not be completely infallible - how was Peverell to know that at some point in the distant future there would be an Auror so badass that he had a magical eye that could look through anything else? In the case of the cat, it does what it's supposed to do, which is hide him from Mrs. Noriss's eyes. However, she can hear him and keeps looking in his direction, because that's what cats do when they hear something: they keep watching until they find out what made the noise or get bored when they don't see anything. An intelligent cat like Mrs. Norris would probably keep looking longer. And 2)If we suppose the whole Death tale to be true, then it can still be possible - Death has more to do than scour every corner of every place where the brother could possibly be - you know, like visiting people he CAN see and taking them with him. So he's unlikely to ever be close enough to detect him in the same way that the cat detected Harry.
This list shows the last 10 events of 63. Show all.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=Headscratchers.HarryPotterAndTheDeathlyHallowsTheDeathlyHallows