Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
[[/folder]]
[[folder:Other]]
* The BadFuture features Muggle-Borns being tortured in Hogwarts's dungeons. Sure, it sends a pretty chilling message about their place in society, but wouldn't that also set them up as martyrs[=/=]{{Woobie}}s for those who ''don't'' agree with the Pure-Blood supremacy thing? Wouldn't hearing the screams of some poor stranger just strengthen the resolve of any double agents or resistance sympathizers walking Hogwarts's halls?
** Anyone working against him was instantly set upon by dementors and turned into an empty shell. And it's easy to see why he'd do it in a school — where impressionable children are. Children don't think like that; they get raised hearing people being tortured and they theorise that they should keep in line or that'll happen to them. It's happening there to remind people who's in charge. Remember at the point in time that Scorpius goes to is twenty-two years after the war. Any resistance or sympathisers has really been depleted. So maybe it didn't start right away, but it became a gradual thing to keep everyone in line.
* Is Binns still working at Hogwarts in the BadFuture? If so, he poses more of a threat to the Death Eater regime than Snape does, since he can directly counter any revisionist history that might be force-fed to students. On top of that, he can neither be killed nor coerced into shutting up because he's a ghost. He can't even be LockedInTheDungeon because he can walk through walls. What threat could Umbridge possibly pose to a being that cannot be killed or permanently harmed in any way that we know of?
** In book 5, chapter 28, it is [[ImpliedTrope implied]] that ghosts can be exorcised in some way. If Binns'd been causing trouble, that would probably be his fate.
*** Which would keep him from teaching anything conflicting with the Death Eater philosophy, but to anti-Voldemort families, it would reek of a cover-up.
** Also, we know that a Basilisk stare can incapacitate a ghost, and I would not put it past Voldemort to be able to acquire another one, especially after he was no longer in hiding. Even if exorcism was off the table for some reason, they could have petrified him, stuffed him in storage somewhere, and invented some reason for him being gone (they could say that he got fed up with teaching history to decades of students that don't listen, that he hated the new regime and left, or that he took a vacation over the summer and never returned).
* When Albus and Scorpius go back in time, their only goal is to save Cedric Diggory. But ''why''? They could have prevented Voldemort from rebirthing, destroyed his Horcruxes, and ensured the entire War never happened, which would have saved Cedric's life anyway. All they'd have to do is get a list of Horcruxes and leave it with Dumbledore, along with a warning about what was going to happen at the end of the Triwizard Tournament.
** Was it ever said that they knew what/where his Horcruxes were? Plus, they were only going back to save Cedric for Amos Diggory — they never intended to do anything as large-scale as interfering with Voldemort's actions, only wanting to save the life of an expendable by keeping him away from the place where he was killed.
*** No, but I see no reason why, after the war, the true nature of Voldemort's immortality ''wouldn't'' be leaked to the press. Think of all the books RealLife writers publish on Hitler's atrocities and Stalin's means of controlling his people. The first confirmed case of a Dark wizard actually using Horcruxes in their lifetime would be bestseller material if only so British witches and wizards could make some sense of the evilest wizard they knew. I've chronicled my objections to their only wanting to go back and save one person on the Headscratchers page, so I won't rehash them here.
*** Probably because the mere existence, let alone the details of, Horcruxes were kept top secret, to the point of removing mentions of them in books and such. I don't see any reason why the Ministry would reverse its stance after Voldemort showed what happens if the wrong person got a hold of that knowledge, and very few people on the good guys' side (one of which is now dead) knew about Voldemort using them. It would be trivial for them to stay the course, and I really doubt Harry and company would really care all that much about getting the "truth" out. Heck, I'm not even sure there were any non-Death Eaters that knew about Voldemort's use of them by the war's end, other than Harry, Ron, and Hermoine.
*** What about restoring the public's trust? Even though it was under the control of an Imperiused Minister, the fact is that the Ministry of Magic turned against its own people for an entire year, a year when Muggle-Borns were put on trial in {{kangaroo court}}s and either excommunicated or sent to Azkaban, when the right to homeschool was done away with and a sizable portion of Hogwarts students were expelled. It won't be enough for Shacklebolt to ''say'' he's for the freedoms of all wizards; he's going to have to put his money where his mouth is, and restricting the press is, historically speaking, not a great way to show the public that you have nothing to hide. That The Ministry had nothing to do with Voldemort's Horcruxes is immaterial. If a writer — Harry or someone else — wants to publish a book on how Voldemort gained his immortality and The Ministry says no, that's going to look awfully suspicious to a public that will already be suspicious of its government. The suspicion doubles if the writer in question included no information on Horcruxes that could be considered vaguely instructional.
** They're over-emotional fourteen-year-olds. One of them is relentlessly bullied, and the other has lost his mother. The whole idea is that they're dysfunctional and not thinking straight. Were you the most rational person when you were fourteen? Albus overheard his father denying a poor man the request to have his son again. He doesn't know the effect using the Time Turner could have — partially because his father hasn't explained everything to him.
** They may have known that trying to change the course of the War could have done something to prevent their births (they heard how many stories about their parents' adventures growing up?) or change the future too much. But by just saving Cedric, maybe the timeline wouldn't notice.
** Delphi was operating the whole thing, wasn't she? Because of the prophecy nonsense, she planted it in their heads that they needed to save Cedric to help Amos because Albus was completely unstable and blamed the entire thing on his father. They weren't really trying to reverse the war because they just wanted to stick it to Harry and save Cedric because of Delphi.
** The motivating factor behind them saving Cedric traces back to when Voldemort ordered for him to die: "Kill ''the spare!'' It's mentioned at least once that Cedric's death was a tragic mistake that didn't need to happen; Harry could have gone to the graveyard on his own and still escaped thanks to the other ghosts from Voldemort's wand, and it was everyone's assumption that the outcome of the war would've been the same regardless. Albus and Scorpius didn't want to change the outcome of the war due to the profound impact it had upon the world, just like you wouldn't want to go back and preempt the onset of World War II. They only wanted to go back and fix something they thought would have no lasting consequences.
* Why are the vast majority of ''Cursed Child''-era Slytherins {{Jerkass}}es? You'd think that all of the bad press their House received from the war would lead them to at least ''pretend'' to be nicer. Especially since the son of a war hero is now one of them. That's a golden opportunity to remake their House's image, and they squander it. ''Why?''
** It's possible that a vast majority of Slytherins are the children and grandchildren of Death Eaters, or of people who supported Voldemort's regime, or at any rate, some of his ideas about Pure-Blood supremacy. All the suspicion, fear, and possibly outright hatred directed towards their families no doubt bred resentment against the rest of The Wizarding World, which manifests itself in them being jerkasses. That said, we do not really meet too many Slytherins in the play, so we don't know the true extent to which they are all still jerkasses.
*** But Scorpius is the child ''and'' grandchild of Death Eaters, and he's a lovable geek. This is probably due at least in part to Draco turning his back on Death Eater ideology long before Scorpius was born and raising him accordingly, but why did none of his classmates do the same? Disillusionment would be a certainty for many Slytherins in Draco's year and below, after seeing where their parents' ideology got the world. It's fair to assume that at least some of them would raise their children the way Scorpius was raised, resulting in fewer {{Jerkass}}es.
*** It's entirely possible (as pointed out under FridgeBrilliance) that the children of disillusioned Slytherins who turned away from their own parents' ideology are present; they're just staying out of the rivalries at school, and since they're keeping quiet, no one bothers to note them.
*** I could be in the minority on this, but given how much attention is paid to the general nastiness of Slytherin House in the books (occasionally, especially in the first four volumes, [[UnfortunateImplications to the point of leading the reader to assume that students choose Slytherin because they are morally deficient]]), it seems to me that the very presence of decent Slytherins would be noteworthy. Even just a throwaway line about how "most Slytherins keep to themselves these days" or "this year's batch of Slytherins is so much more friendly and helpful than they were back during the War" would be enough to establish their existence; the fact that their presence isn't noted carries the implication that they aren't present at all.
*** While I respect your opinion and thoughts, the above is a flawed argument. It's like saying "all the Ravenclaws are bullying Luna since we never see anyone from her own House treating her kindly." or "all Hufflepuffs except Cedric hated Harry during 'Goblet' because we never see any of them saying anything nice." (The second one is a bit of an exaggeration, but still.) Plus the whole "nice Slytherins keep out of the rivalries and are never mentioned because they're not worth noting" has probably been going on since Harry's early days; Malfoy was king of Slytherin back during Harry's school days and until CharacterDevelopment and [[MyGodWhatHaveIDone "Oh God; what have I gotten into?"]] kicked in, it wasn't really safe to treat anyone he looked down on (read: ''everyone who wasn't in Slytherin'' and probably certain people in it) well. Loud-mouthed bullies frequently gain power over others and ''stay'' that way until something drastic happens to shift power. The same thing is happening in the next generation because the rest of the school is all "Slytherins are pure evil; the last war proved that." since no one bothered to point out how not everyone who followed Voldemort was from Slytherin and the loud-mouthed Slytherins were raised by people who wanted the "glory days" back while their nicer but quieter house-mates are too timid (loosely speaking) to ever stand up for anyone.
*** ....but the assumptions about Hufflepuffs and Ravenclaws are assumptions that the books themselves reinforce. Furthermore, if, after the war (a pretty drastic shake-up for Slytherin House so far as loyalties and power dynamics are concerned) Slytherin is ''still'' "ruled" by the equivalent of pre-CharacterDevelopment Malfoy, that brings up some pretty UnfortunateImplications about Slytherin as a whole. Why were so many loud-mouthed Slytherins raised to believe that Voldemort had the right idea? Why were none of their Housemates taught to refute them? If their parents saw that the pro-pureblood rhetoric took their House into some pretty dark places during the war, one would think that they would raise their children to stand up to said rhetoric. The fact that no one does implies that the only decent Slytherins are cowards — which, again, brings up some pretty UnfortunateImplications about Slytherins and their character.
*** To me, it [[UnfortunateImplications doesn't really speak well of the other Houses either]]. Gryffindors are supposed to be brave and noble; why don't any of them try to reach out to Slytherins since trying to make friends with someone often takes more courage than just going with the flow that says "They're evil trash; don't bother."? Ravenclaws are supposed to be wise and inquisitive; why aren't they discretely investigating to see which Slytherins are decent people and then try to build an alliance with them to dethrone the jerks, which, if they could get at least some Gryffindors and Hufflepuffs in on the act, is feasible? Hufflepuffs are supposed to be inclusive and all about fair play; what exactly is fair and inclusive about tarring a whole House with the same brush? While it still doesn't speak well of the character of Slytherin as a whole, it's kinda hard to rock the boat when you're a minority with few options for outside help. Slytherins are known for their cunning and a desire to ensure their survival, and, unfortunately, Hogwarts, is an environment where survival often means going along with something you don't agree with or keeping your head down and your mouth shut.
*** So in other words, every Hogwarts House is terrible, the decent Slytherins are without allies on any side, and the teachers don't care?
*** Well, I'd phrase it as the awful ones run each House and the decent folks, in general, have no allies with the Slytherins being the worst off since a Gryffindor, Ravenclaw, or Hufflepuff who tried to break the mold would probably get a metaphorical pat on the head and a "Don't be silly/stupid/etc.; the way we're doing things works just fine." and subtle pressure rather than the crueler techniques the awful Slytherins would employ, though I wouldn't put it past any of the Houses to treat anyone like that as their generation's Luna Lovegood, but yeah; pretty much...And no one (not even war heroes like Harry or Neville) is bothering to fix the system because they can't see that it's broken yet. Maybe it could happen post-book; maybe not. But either way, there are still a lot of things broken after the Second War and not enough support to fix them yet.
*** Why was the war not enough to show teachers that the system was broken?
*** Heck if I know. Might be because the system was responsible for creating their heroes [[SarcasmMode so obviously it's working just fine]].
*** You know most teens aren't exactly the nicest people when they're in school. Bullying is what happens when you get a bunch of hormone-addled kids together for a long period of time. And as someone who can relate to what Albus went through, when you're bullied, you can sometimes develop a victim complex and assume ''everyone'' is out to get you. It could only have been a handful of people, but Albus just assumed everyone was attacking him over it. Scorpius calls him out for having a chip on his shoulder.
*** Pretty much. Admittedly, this isn't helped by the Sorting. Remember, you're Sorted at least partially by the personality traits you have and admire. Slytherin's trait is Cunning, as distinct from Ravenclaw's Intellect — getting what you want by being sneaky, rather than just by knowledge. That means that being sorted into Slytherin requires either being sneaky (Draco, Lucius) or admiring those who are sneaky (Crabbe, Goyle). This ironically means that the loudmouthed blood purity types are really not very good at being Slytherins...
** I personally think they aren't, just like there were plenty of decent Slytherins back in Harry's era. I have no idea how many students there are in Hogwarts, but lets say about 100 per house. Both Albus and Scorpius are rather shy and thus probably wouldn't try to get to know all 400 Hogwarts students (I, personally, was glad when I learned the names of my 15 or so classmates because I don't socialize much and thus take a long time for that). They'd know each other, and the ones they had the most contact with. It's quite probable that most other students saw they didn't try to socialize with them, so they decided not to talk much with A&S either. That means the only ones they had much interaction with are each other and the bullies, thus everyone we see is either Scorpius, Albus, or a bully. Same thing in the books — Harry and Co didn't try to get to know any Slytherins, so the only Slytherins they mentioned were the bullies, leading readers to believe all Slytherins were like that.
* Why did the rumor that Scorpius is Voldemort's son gain any traction at all? Even within the context of the Wizarding World, it seems wildly implausible. A rumor that Scorpius was being raised to practice Dark magic, or that he'd cast his first Unforgivable before the age of nine, would've been more likely.
** Furthermore, if the Wizarding World has a potion to cure the common cold, a potion to keep werewolves from going insane during the full moon, and a potion to regrow bones, ''why in the name of Merlin do they not have a paternity test''?
*** Two reasons I can think of. 1) they ''do'' have the paternity test, but it's easy to fool by strong enough magic (like Veritserum) or 2) they ''do'' have said paternity test, but there's a bias that if you need to use it, there ''must'' be ''something'' you're hiding; otherwise why would you feel the need to prove anything? The latter is actually something that crops up in our [[RealLife boring real world]]; even if the proof comes back to show nothing bad happened, rumors will still fly and reputations can still get ruined. Just because the truth is proven/provable doesn't mean that reputations won't take damage or even be destroyed outright.
*** So why are paternity tests never mentioned? Draco tried to get law enforcement involved in squashing rumors about his son; on the scale of extreme reactions, running a paternity test and publishing the results in the newspaper is well below approaching the RealLife equivalent of the local police commissioner. If Draco had done that, one would think he would have said something about it when he went to Harry; or that Scorpius would have brought up said paternity test when he was bullied at Hogwarts. Furthermore, the notion that ''everyone'' would dismiss the results of a verified paternity test out of hand stretches credulity. Even if a vocal minority held to the idea that Voldemort was the father, there would still be people who believed the test results and said so. Additionally, I cannot see how the possibility of starting rumors that the Malfoy family had something mysterious to hide would be worse than having your child live with rumors that Wizard Hitler is his father. If Draco was willing to get law enforcement involved, then it seems like he would be willing to deal with the less severe rumors a paternity test caused. His reputation is already damaged; what's one more rumor, if it gets his son off the hook?
*** Furthermore, going back to your first reason: If wizarding paternity tests are so easy to fool, why on earth has no one introduced, or at least attempted, a tamper-proof design?
*** For the same reason no one tried to do the same thing with Veritserum; even if it was supposedly fool-proof with lots of data to back up that claim, people would still cry foul because it's nearly impossible to change deeply entrenched beliefs. It's been believed for so long that everyone who grew up when it could be fooled would have to either die off or be old enough to be going senile for the new beliefs to take. As for why it's never mentioned, it wasn't important to the plot. Maybe it happened off-screen and despite the results showing the rumors were false, people who were on the Light side of the war just trumpeted about how Malfoy ''obviously'' used some sort of magic to skew them in his favor and everyone jumped on the bandwagon. Stupidity isn't illegal and apparently, even the second Wizarding War didn't render slander or libel illegal either.
*** Forgive me, but that's a rather weak defense. It essentially boils down to, "The older people thought it worked just fine, and none of the younger generation could be bothered to speak up to the contrary." If this happened in the Muggle world, we'd still be using [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathode_ray_tube#21st_century_usage tube television]]. Progress happens because people see that an established institution could use improvement, and set about improving it; and if something as useful as a paternity test was demonstrably ''not'' foolproof, then wizards would set about improving it until it was as foolproof as it could be. And what do you mean, it wasn't important to the plot? A good deal of conflict ''and'' characterization derives from the Scorpius rumor, so a paternity test or lack of one would definitely be important to the plot.
*** What I meant was that not every part of the important backstory needs to be shown, especially since we don't know exactly what happened off-screen in canon yet (and if a magical paternity test is canon, I agree it should have at least been mentioned); pardon my phrasing. As for the defense being weak, the Wizarding World knows the absolute minimum necessary about Muggles and the Muggle world for each person's job and trying to be up to date on it like Mr. Weasley (even if he's still backward about it; see how he pronounces words like "electricity" or "telephone" [I know Ron's the one who said it but presumably he learned it from his dad]) is treated as "not being a proper wizard" (heck; ''adults'' don't know what guns are when Muggles have had those for ''centuries'' and can't blend in among Muggles to save their lives). And need I mention how easy it was for Fudge to say "Well, you don't have a teacher yet. Here's my toady to take over your classes. What; qualifications? Because I say so." about Umbridge, potentially depriving what amounts to the police of an entire generation of potential new recruits? I'm pretty sure that Britain moved past that stage years ago if they even went through it at all. I'm not saying that the above logic you state works in RealLife; I'm saying that the Wizarding World is backward enough that it might crop up as an issue more often than it does for us (they're still writing with ''quills''; are actual pens that incompatible with magic?). And actually it took UsefulNotes/WorldWarII to shake the world governments' notion that "when someone causes a war and then loses, you tax the hell out of them and then abandon them to make do." was infallible post-war diplomacy.
*** But Wizarding Britain already went through their WWII equivalent — twenty years prior to this story, actually — so they should at the very least be looking at ways to innovate their society. If the second war didn't cause progress, then wizarding society will head rapidly toward yet another war, yet another Voldemort, because they haven't learned from their mistakes. Furthermore, if a plot point only works because the entire world is holding the IdiotBall, then it's not a very good plot point.
*** Can't say I can argue with that, hence why I'm completely ignoring this play in most, if not all, of my next-gen stories.
*** There are also social reasons for paternity tests not to exist. Who is the ruling class of wizard society? Pure-blood society. What does pure-blood society love doing? Performing revisionism on family trees, either to expunge "filth" from their genealogies or to falsify their supposed right to exist in the pure-blood social circle. The Blacks frequently disowned their children for their transgressions. Squibs are regularly hushed up. Pure-blood extremists like the Death Eaters are perfectly willing to pretend that half-bloods are actually pure-blood if the half-blood in question is talented enough and/or enough of an asset. Non-pure-bloods like Umbridge pretend to be related to pure-blood families to boost their own credentials. Hell, Voldemort himself is a perfect example of a half-blood who needs to pretend to be pure. None of that (barring the disownment of blood traitors, to a degree) is possible if there's a way to magically prove ancestry. So the pure-bloods, ironically, have every reason to ''not'' want a way to prove ancestry beyond a shadow of a doubt.
** The impression I got was that it was mainly being spread amongst gullible Hogwarts students — particularly the 11-14 set. Former Death Eaters must seem like acceptable targets in-universe, hence why the rumour got any traction at all. And since Delphi has been implied to be raising an army, perhaps she encouraged the rumours herself.
*** To reiterate a point I've made before, if the rumors are bad enough that Draco goes to [[DaChief Harry]] and asks him to use his position as Head of Magical Law Enforcement to shut the rumors down, then the parents must be involved in spreading the rumors. Either they're sitting back and letting their kids spread a rumor they think is ridiculous, or they believe the rumor and they're spreading it themselves.
* When Scorpius noticed that Snape's Patronus is a doe, why would he know that it's related to Lily Potter? I don't think it's widespread information. You can argue that he's a bookworm, but surely that wasn't the kind of information you find from a book?
** It's ''possible'' that Harry told Albus who told Scorpius, but this in turn begs the question of how in Merlin's name '''that''' came up in conversation between Harry and Albus, let alone two schoolboys who neither knew Snape personally nor had any reason to know what form his Patronus took.
*** Well, it's not unbelievable that Albus wouldn't be at least a little curious about one of the two men he was named after, and he and Scorpius seem the type to not really hide anything from one another, so they likely know pretty much everything the other knows.
*** Curiosity would explain why Albus knows, but as for Scorpius, I'm imagining Albus saying, "I learned about the guy I got my middle name from today. He was kind of a jerk, but also pretty brave. Died heroically. He had greasy hair and was in love with my grandmother. His Patronus was a doe, and his Social Security Number was...." Point is, it's an odd thing to tell your friend. Unless there's a good and rather specific reason for your friend to know it, that's not the sort of information most people just share.
** Don't forget that the doe patronus is what led Harry to the sword hidden in the frozen lake — and destroying a horcrux. That's a pretty spectacular story to tell. When the kids ask "where did the doe come from?" then comes the explanation and context. And let's be real — the notion that Snape's love for Lily manifested itself in such a way is the sort of information certain members of the public would {{Squee}} over.
* Delphi's existence makes even ''less'' sense when you consider the fact that if Voldemort wanted a human being to serve as a future Horcrux, he could've just used Bellatrix. She's fiercely loyal, absolutely willing, and fully capable of protecting herself, should anyone learn the truth.
** Where are you getting the idea that the only possible basis for her conception was so Voldemort could use her as a Horcrux?
*** I was refuting a common fan theory that she was raised to be a Horcrux. I don't believe I ever said that it was the only possible reason for her existence.
** A great theory for her existence from the brilliant [[https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Creator/AnneBWalsh Anne B. Walsh]]: Delphi was a surrogate baby. Magically conceived and implanted in the woman she mentioned in Cursed Child as bringing her up, as Bellatrix's idea of a last-ditch backup. Voldie probably never even knew about her.
*** I suppose that's plausible, but it does beg the question (brought up earlier) of why the Wizarding World has so many useful spells and trinkets but the notion of a paternity test is entirely foreign to them. In the Muggle world, [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_paternity_testing accurate paternity tests became possible in the 1960s and were further refined in the 1980s]] while [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrogacy the first successful surrogate pregnancy didn't happen until 1985]]. Determining a child's paternity is less risky overall than surrogacy; the danger of surrogacy increases substantially if Bellatrix's pregnancy was already in progress when she implanted Delphi into a surrogate. If Bellatrix was able to have a surrogate deliver Delphi with no apparent risks or complications, then why is it apparently impossible to determine Scorpius' parentage twenty years later? Why develop the magic for surrogacy (not uncommon in the Muggle world, but still far less common than traditional pregnancy) but leave paternity tests (useful for those old pureblood families dogged by rumors of their male heir [[UnusualEuphemism going roadside]] with an attractive Muggle) to be forgotten?
** For those that like to think she was conceived to become an heir, maybe Voldemort planned to declare her as his heir publicly, but he was busy looking for the Elder Wand first. The same night he finally gets it is when everything else starts falling apart for him. In the weeks between getting the wand and his eventual death, he just had too many loose ends to tie up before declaring an heir. Of course since we don't ever see into his POV, all we can go on is guesswork.
* Voldemort rules the UK when Scorpius appears in the main BadFuture. In DH, he made his intentions for the Muggle world clear, both verbally and through that creepy statue in the Ministry building. However, no Muggle nation would go down without a fight; even if the other side had magic, they have guns, explosives, and [=WMDs=] up to and including nukes. If Magical Hitler attempted a hostile takeover of the UK, it would spark a [[TheMagicVersusTechnologyWar magic-vs.-Muggle war]] that would, in all likelihood, rage for years. Even if it ended with the majority of Muggle Britain evacuating or dead, the UK's allies would continue fighting Magical Hitler....to the extent they were able, as some of them would likely be embroiled in civil wars against their ''own'' pureblood extremists. Basically, the whole world should either be [[TheyWastedAPerfectlyGoodPlot in the middle of a quarter-century-long war pitting magic against technology]], or [[AfterTheEnd a post-apocalyptic wasteland littered with magical and radioactive fallout]].
** For all we know, there's a spell to disable nukes. Also, wizards would undoubtedly have an edge over Muggles. Wizards can easily disarm, stun or kill even armed Muggles with minimal effort. Not to mention, they have methods of concealment and transport that can evade even the most advanced Muggle surveillance systems (and considering that Voldemort would have started taking over Britain in the late 90's, the survelliance tools and weaponry available to Muggles would be even more limited than they would be today). So in a Muggle vs. Wizards war, the Muggles would lose easily. Having said that, judging by dialogue in the scene with Scorpios, Muggle society continues to exist and hasn't been totally taken over by Voldemort's reign, since Draco claims he would have to bribe the British PM to cover up the killings of Muggles.
*** First off, assuming that magic is even capable of disabling a nuke [[UsefulNotes/NuclearWeapons is a pretty big assumption, given how powerful those things are.]] It ''could'' be possible, but it doesn't seem likely, especially since wizard society is so distanced from Muggle society that Arthur Weasley thinks bath plugs are an amazing invention. Muggleborns are probably the only ones who even know what a nuclear weapon ''is,'' let alone how powerful it can be; and if one of them has an inkling of how to disarm one (which isn't likely, as they left the Muggle world long before they could pursue a career in nuclear engineering) they aren't going to tell Voldemort. Second, war spurs technological innovation. Just look at all of the inventions that came out of or were fine-tuned by WWII. If Muggles were faced with a magical threat, they would race to catch up—which wouldn't be as impossible as it seems, since the fact that Muggleborns were tortured for sport would cause many of them and their supporters to flee to the Muggles, offering their magic in exchange for protection. Magically enhanced weaponry would follow quickly.
*** As far as we know, it would only take someone skilled in Transfiguration to disarm a nuke... by turning it into a desk or or a cup or a tortoise. We know elemental transmutation doesn't necessarily require alchemical knowledge or a Philosopher's Stone, as the first lesson first year Transfiguration students are taught is to turn a matchstick (made of wood, phosphorous, sulfur, and a few more compounds not including steel or nickel) into a needle (modern ones are made of high carbon steel and nickel plated).
** I think you're ''seriously'' underestimating just how powerful radioactive energy is, and how potent a poison radiation is. Turning a matchstick into a needle would require getting rid of ''very'' small amounts of phosphorus, sulfur, etc.; turning a nuke into something harmless would require getting rid of enough energy to wipe out a city, and enough poison to kill people in the surrounding areas.
*** You're assuming that there WOULD be a war, when in all likelihood, every important muggle leader would have likely been imperiused long before anyone knew there was a threat. They have no way of countering invisibility cloaks and apparition, either, so applying imperius to wide swaths of important politicians and military leaders would be trivial with just a slight amount of planning. With a thorough enough sweep, Voldemort would have little trouble taking over.
*** Heat sensors/infrared goggles may or may not be deterred by an invisibility cloak, but a pressure pad-equipped floor or a well placed, nearly invisible itself tripwire attached to a Claymore mine would do just fine. As for the problem of Apparition, assuming that we non-magic folk could not devise a barrier to it through some form of advanced physics, it's simply a matter of attrition. A wizard could apparate into a room and slaughter a dozen people with relative ease, but if he's unlucky even for half a second, or delays just a little bit, one well placed bullet ends the threat. Remember, these are people whose "duels" involve projectiles so slow the best defense against many of them is to just dodge. And considering how few wizards there are relative to Muggles, even with an average kill ratio of a hundred to one they would lose before they wiped out conventional muggle armed forces. A war of attrition is both one we are accustomed to fighting and far better off to attempt.
*** DH implies that an Invisibility Cloak wouldn't fool heat sensors and infrared, by showing that it doesn't fool Nagini, who is able to see Harry and Hermione when the two approach the Potter home under the true Cloak of Invisibility. They are invisible to sight, but any other sense is still able to locate someone under an Invisibility Cloak, as characters are shown to be able to hear, smell, and touch Cloaked individuals.
*** That's not even factoring in the potential damage that guerrilla warfare could cause. If a few Muggle freedom fighters learned that the people responsible for killing their families were headquartered in a hidden mansion somewhere near Wiltshire, those freedom fighters wouldn't shrug and say "Oh, well, we don't know where they are, so we're [=SOL=]." No, they'd get the best approximate coordinates available, pack the perimeter with explosives, and let 'er rip.
*** Voldemort has, at maximum, a hundred Death Eaters at his disposal. The population of the UK was, in 1996 (the year the Second Wizarding War began) 58.17 million. Even if one Death Eater can Imperius a hundred people at a time (which seems like a ridiculously high number, but let's go with it) that's only 10,000 people. Now, 10,000 people ''can'' do a lot of damage, but the Muggles who aren't Imperiused are going to fight back, or go into hiding. The Muggle Prime Minister knows witches and wizards exist, so when 10,000 of his countrymen start committing murders and other felonies out of the blue, he's going to remember that the last Minister of Magic told him that there were a lot of dangerous witches and wizards on the loose, and he's going to put two and two together. Even if the PM doesn't have a contingency plan in place for this eventuality (and if he's a leader worth his salt, he absolutely does; governments have plans in place for everything from nuclear war to pandemics) he's going to scrap one together to try and keep as many of his citizens alive as possible. Finally, remember that while a Muggle can be Imperiused, the act of being Imperiused does not endow them with the same powers as the wizard who cursed them. They're still just as fragile and fallible as they were when they had control of their own minds. So if an Imperiused Muggle goes after a police officer, that police officer can still neutralize that Muggle by ordinary means. In other words, yes, simple survival instincts will ensure that there will be a war.
*** Going by your assumption that a Death Eater can Imperius 100 people at a time, assume instead that they're Imperiusing unsuspecting wizards. 100 Death Eaters Imperius 10,000 wizards, who then Imperius 100 Muggles apiece? That's 1,000,000 Muggles. You have a pretty solid chunk of the Muggle population under Death Eater control instantly. Then each of the Imperiused wizards can move on to controlling or killing another 100 Muggles apiece.
** So if it's that easy, why didn't Voldemort just have his Death Eaters do that in ''Deathly Hallows''? Seems like it would've been much more prudent to simply Imperius hundreds of thousands of Muggles to keep the wizards in line, instead of going the puppet regime route. And there's no textual evidence that such an absurdly high limit is even possible.
*** Furthermore, if the Death Eaters ''are'' capable of Imperiusing large numbers of people at one time, then why did they not simply Imperius every important member of the Ministry during the final book? It would have solved a lot of problems. Additionally, it seems that there is some difficulty in Imperiusing more than one or two people at once; in HBP, there was a point where Draco had both Rosemerta and Katie Bell Imperiused, and Rosemerta was the only one who acted naturally. This could be attributed to Draco's lack of skill with the curse, his internal conflict over what he was doing, or both (depending on your interpretation of his character), but it does seem to set a rather small limit on the number of people a witch or wizard can Imperius at one time.
*** And then in DH, Harry has (during his first attempt at using the spell) no trouble using the Imperius Curse on Travers and Gornuk. Both behave under his control exactly has he directs them to. It requires very little of his concentration to keep them under control, likely because neither has had training in fighting the curse. This troper would say that Katie did not act naturally because Draco forced her to do something that Katie would never have done - and she was immediately spotted as being Imperiused by someone who knew her and who knew that Katie would never agree to deliver a secret parcel to a mystery recipient willingly. Note that skill at the Imperius curse doesn't guarantee that one acts naturally, it guarantees that the victim follows your orders. This is demonstrated in almost every situation we see the curse being used, because only Rosmerta was under specific command to act naturally. The curse also requires a fair amount of willpower to resist, much less to throw off. We are only ever shown the curse being thrown off by Harry, and when Gornuk is hit by the Thief's Downfall, which breaks all enchantments.
** And yet one of Voldemort's Death Eaters announces that he has successfully placed an Imperius Curse on Thicknesse, as if it would have been difficult to manage. The whole thing is riddled with inconsistencies.
* In a series where death is supposed to be looked at as the next big adventure, is there any real reason why everyone is so adamant that Delphi can't just get a MercyKill? It's built up as no one wanting to sink to the level of murder, but isn't it a bit different in this case, as she's ''asking'' to be killed? I realize that she can't have death as a means of escaping other punishment, but that's not the reason any character gives for their refusal to do it.
** In Britain, folks have a different attitude to the death penalty. It's viewed as barbaric and archaic. And that's what killing Delphi would be. The Ministry broke a lot of rules and played dirty at the end of the first war - trying and imprisoning several people without a trial and allowing Aurors to kill without concern. So it's entirely reasonable that none of the survivors of the second war want to repeat the same mistakes as their predecessors. Delphi is to be sent to Azkaban to properly pay for her crimes.
*** That logic kind of falls apart when one considers the fact that, a mere twenty-two years prior to this story, Azkaban was a PlaceWorseThanDeath where an untold number of prisoners had been DrivenToSuicide by ''starvation''—one of the slowest and most painful methods of death. One step beyond that punishment was the Dementor's Kiss, a death sentence in all but name, where although the victim would still be breathing, they were quite literally an EmptyShell, unresponsive and incapable of recovery. Azkaban might be empty of dementors now, but there still have to be people who would see killing Delphi or having her Kissed as the better option, compared to leaving her in a prison from which she can potentially escape.
*** With that argument though, that just falls under the Real World issue of whether it's better or not to deliver the Death Penalty to a Criminal or give them a life sentence in general. Without a Wand, and since it's a Prison without Dementors now (I'd presume that there's just Wizard Guards now), Azkaban's basically just a normal Prison with Guards that know Magic now. So honestly, you can argue that Delphi escaping is just as likely as a normal person escaping from a normal prison really. And that kind of logic could just as easily lead to the argument that "We might as well not have prisons then". It's a more humane way of keeping Criminals away from Society now, and again, as said before, the Survivors of the Second War wouldn't want to play dirty and kill, especially when imprisoning people is a far less torturous means of keeping Criminals from harming people in this era.
*** Whether the death penalty is warranted or not is a completely separate and irrelevant matter, as the books make clear that mercy kills aren't viewed as the same kind of soul-twisting evil that outright murder is -- that was one reason why Dumbledore wanted Snape to kill him as opposed to making Draco Malfoy do it. Had the heroes told Delphi, "We can't kill you because you've taken the life of another person, and you need to face the punishment for your crimes according to the law," that would've been a better answer than "We can't kill you because we're the good guys and even in these circumstances, killing you would be wrong."
[[folder:Other]]
* The BadFuture features Muggle-Borns being tortured in Hogwarts's dungeons. Sure, it sends a pretty chilling message about their place in society, but wouldn't that also set them up as martyrs[=/=]{{Woobie}}s for those who ''don't'' agree with the Pure-Blood supremacy thing? Wouldn't hearing the screams of some poor stranger just strengthen the resolve of any double agents or resistance sympathizers walking Hogwarts's halls?
** Anyone working against him was instantly set upon by dementors and turned into an empty shell. And it's easy to see why he'd do it in a school — where impressionable children are. Children don't think like that; they get raised hearing people being tortured and they theorise that they should keep in line or that'll happen to them. It's happening there to remind people who's in charge. Remember at the point in time that Scorpius goes to is twenty-two years after the war. Any resistance or sympathisers has really been depleted. So maybe it didn't start right away, but it became a gradual thing to keep everyone in line.
* Is Binns still working at Hogwarts in the BadFuture? If so, he poses more of a threat to the Death Eater regime than Snape does, since he can directly counter any revisionist history that might be force-fed to students. On top of that, he can neither be killed nor coerced into shutting up because he's a ghost. He can't even be LockedInTheDungeon because he can walk through walls. What threat could Umbridge possibly pose to a being that cannot be killed or permanently harmed in any way that we know of?
** In book 5, chapter 28, it is [[ImpliedTrope implied]] that ghosts can be exorcised in some way. If Binns'd been causing trouble, that would probably be his fate.
*** Which would keep him from teaching anything conflicting with the Death Eater philosophy, but to anti-Voldemort families, it would reek of a cover-up.
** Also, we know that a Basilisk stare can incapacitate a ghost, and I would not put it past Voldemort to be able to acquire another one, especially after he was no longer in hiding. Even if exorcism was off the table for some reason, they could have petrified him, stuffed him in storage somewhere, and invented some reason for him being gone (they could say that he got fed up with teaching history to decades of students that don't listen, that he hated the new regime and left, or that he took a vacation over the summer and never returned).
* When Albus and Scorpius go back in time, their only goal is to save Cedric Diggory. But ''why''? They could have prevented Voldemort from rebirthing, destroyed his Horcruxes, and ensured the entire War never happened, which would have saved Cedric's life anyway. All they'd have to do is get a list of Horcruxes and leave it with Dumbledore, along with a warning about what was going to happen at the end of the Triwizard Tournament.
** Was it ever said that they knew what/where his Horcruxes were? Plus, they were only going back to save Cedric for Amos Diggory — they never intended to do anything as large-scale as interfering with Voldemort's actions, only wanting to save the life of an expendable by keeping him away from the place where he was killed.
*** No, but I see no reason why, after the war, the true nature of Voldemort's immortality ''wouldn't'' be leaked to the press. Think of all the books RealLife writers publish on Hitler's atrocities and Stalin's means of controlling his people. The first confirmed case of a Dark wizard actually using Horcruxes in their lifetime would be bestseller material if only so British witches and wizards could make some sense of the evilest wizard they knew. I've chronicled my objections to their only wanting to go back and save one person on the Headscratchers page, so I won't rehash them here.
*** Probably because the mere existence, let alone the details of, Horcruxes were kept top secret, to the point of removing mentions of them in books and such. I don't see any reason why the Ministry would reverse its stance after Voldemort showed what happens if the wrong person got a hold of that knowledge, and very few people on the good guys' side (one of which is now dead) knew about Voldemort using them. It would be trivial for them to stay the course, and I really doubt Harry and company would really care all that much about getting the "truth" out. Heck, I'm not even sure there were any non-Death Eaters that knew about Voldemort's use of them by the war's end, other than Harry, Ron, and Hermoine.
*** What about restoring the public's trust? Even though it was under the control of an Imperiused Minister, the fact is that the Ministry of Magic turned against its own people for an entire year, a year when Muggle-Borns were put on trial in {{kangaroo court}}s and either excommunicated or sent to Azkaban, when the right to homeschool was done away with and a sizable portion of Hogwarts students were expelled. It won't be enough for Shacklebolt to ''say'' he's for the freedoms of all wizards; he's going to have to put his money where his mouth is, and restricting the press is, historically speaking, not a great way to show the public that you have nothing to hide. That The Ministry had nothing to do with Voldemort's Horcruxes is immaterial. If a writer — Harry or someone else — wants to publish a book on how Voldemort gained his immortality and The Ministry says no, that's going to look awfully suspicious to a public that will already be suspicious of its government. The suspicion doubles if the writer in question included no information on Horcruxes that could be considered vaguely instructional.
** They're over-emotional fourteen-year-olds. One of them is relentlessly bullied, and the other has lost his mother. The whole idea is that they're dysfunctional and not thinking straight. Were you the most rational person when you were fourteen? Albus overheard his father denying a poor man the request to have his son again. He doesn't know the effect using the Time Turner could have — partially because his father hasn't explained everything to him.
** They may have known that trying to change the course of the War could have done something to prevent their births (they heard how many stories about their parents' adventures growing up?) or change the future too much. But by just saving Cedric, maybe the timeline wouldn't notice.
** Delphi was operating the whole thing, wasn't she? Because of the prophecy nonsense, she planted it in their heads that they needed to save Cedric to help Amos because Albus was completely unstable and blamed the entire thing on his father. They weren't really trying to reverse the war because they just wanted to stick it to Harry and save Cedric because of Delphi.
** The motivating factor behind them saving Cedric traces back to when Voldemort ordered for him to die: "Kill ''the spare!'' It's mentioned at least once that Cedric's death was a tragic mistake that didn't need to happen; Harry could have gone to the graveyard on his own and still escaped thanks to the other ghosts from Voldemort's wand, and it was everyone's assumption that the outcome of the war would've been the same regardless. Albus and Scorpius didn't want to change the outcome of the war due to the profound impact it had upon the world, just like you wouldn't want to go back and preempt the onset of World War II. They only wanted to go back and fix something they thought would have no lasting consequences.
* Why are the vast majority of ''Cursed Child''-era Slytherins {{Jerkass}}es? You'd think that all of the bad press their House received from the war would lead them to at least ''pretend'' to be nicer. Especially since the son of a war hero is now one of them. That's a golden opportunity to remake their House's image, and they squander it. ''Why?''
** It's possible that a vast majority of Slytherins are the children and grandchildren of Death Eaters, or of people who supported Voldemort's regime, or at any rate, some of his ideas about Pure-Blood supremacy. All the suspicion, fear, and possibly outright hatred directed towards their families no doubt bred resentment against the rest of The Wizarding World, which manifests itself in them being jerkasses. That said, we do not really meet too many Slytherins in the play, so we don't know the true extent to which they are all still jerkasses.
*** But Scorpius is the child ''and'' grandchild of Death Eaters, and he's a lovable geek. This is probably due at least in part to Draco turning his back on Death Eater ideology long before Scorpius was born and raising him accordingly, but why did none of his classmates do the same? Disillusionment would be a certainty for many Slytherins in Draco's year and below, after seeing where their parents' ideology got the world. It's fair to assume that at least some of them would raise their children the way Scorpius was raised, resulting in fewer {{Jerkass}}es.
*** It's entirely possible (as pointed out under FridgeBrilliance) that the children of disillusioned Slytherins who turned away from their own parents' ideology are present; they're just staying out of the rivalries at school, and since they're keeping quiet, no one bothers to note them.
*** I could be in the minority on this, but given how much attention is paid to the general nastiness of Slytherin House in the books (occasionally, especially in the first four volumes, [[UnfortunateImplications to the point of leading the reader to assume that students choose Slytherin because they are morally deficient]]), it seems to me that the very presence of decent Slytherins would be noteworthy. Even just a throwaway line about how "most Slytherins keep to themselves these days" or "this year's batch of Slytherins is so much more friendly and helpful than they were back during the War" would be enough to establish their existence; the fact that their presence isn't noted carries the implication that they aren't present at all.
*** While I respect your opinion and thoughts, the above is a flawed argument. It's like saying "all the Ravenclaws are bullying Luna since we never see anyone from her own House treating her kindly." or "all Hufflepuffs except Cedric hated Harry during 'Goblet' because we never see any of them saying anything nice." (The second one is a bit of an exaggeration, but still.) Plus the whole "nice Slytherins keep out of the rivalries and are never mentioned because they're not worth noting" has probably been going on since Harry's early days; Malfoy was king of Slytherin back during Harry's school days and until CharacterDevelopment and [[MyGodWhatHaveIDone "Oh God; what have I gotten into?"]] kicked in, it wasn't really safe to treat anyone he looked down on (read: ''everyone who wasn't in Slytherin'' and probably certain people in it) well. Loud-mouthed bullies frequently gain power over others and ''stay'' that way until something drastic happens to shift power. The same thing is happening in the next generation because the rest of the school is all "Slytherins are pure evil; the last war proved that." since no one bothered to point out how not everyone who followed Voldemort was from Slytherin and the loud-mouthed Slytherins were raised by people who wanted the "glory days" back while their nicer but quieter house-mates are too timid (loosely speaking) to ever stand up for anyone.
*** ....but the assumptions about Hufflepuffs and Ravenclaws are assumptions that the books themselves reinforce. Furthermore, if, after the war (a pretty drastic shake-up for Slytherin House so far as loyalties and power dynamics are concerned) Slytherin is ''still'' "ruled" by the equivalent of pre-CharacterDevelopment Malfoy, that brings up some pretty UnfortunateImplications about Slytherin as a whole. Why were so many loud-mouthed Slytherins raised to believe that Voldemort had the right idea? Why were none of their Housemates taught to refute them? If their parents saw that the pro-pureblood rhetoric took their House into some pretty dark places during the war, one would think that they would raise their children to stand up to said rhetoric. The fact that no one does implies that the only decent Slytherins are cowards — which, again, brings up some pretty UnfortunateImplications about Slytherins and their character.
*** To me, it [[UnfortunateImplications doesn't really speak well of the other Houses either]]. Gryffindors are supposed to be brave and noble; why don't any of them try to reach out to Slytherins since trying to make friends with someone often takes more courage than just going with the flow that says "They're evil trash; don't bother."? Ravenclaws are supposed to be wise and inquisitive; why aren't they discretely investigating to see which Slytherins are decent people and then try to build an alliance with them to dethrone the jerks, which, if they could get at least some Gryffindors and Hufflepuffs in on the act, is feasible? Hufflepuffs are supposed to be inclusive and all about fair play; what exactly is fair and inclusive about tarring a whole House with the same brush? While it still doesn't speak well of the character of Slytherin as a whole, it's kinda hard to rock the boat when you're a minority with few options for outside help. Slytherins are known for their cunning and a desire to ensure their survival, and, unfortunately, Hogwarts, is an environment where survival often means going along with something you don't agree with or keeping your head down and your mouth shut.
*** So in other words, every Hogwarts House is terrible, the decent Slytherins are without allies on any side, and the teachers don't care?
*** Well, I'd phrase it as the awful ones run each House and the decent folks, in general, have no allies with the Slytherins being the worst off since a Gryffindor, Ravenclaw, or Hufflepuff who tried to break the mold would probably get a metaphorical pat on the head and a "Don't be silly/stupid/etc.; the way we're doing things works just fine." and subtle pressure rather than the crueler techniques the awful Slytherins would employ, though I wouldn't put it past any of the Houses to treat anyone like that as their generation's Luna Lovegood, but yeah; pretty much...And no one (not even war heroes like Harry or Neville) is bothering to fix the system because they can't see that it's broken yet. Maybe it could happen post-book; maybe not. But either way, there are still a lot of things broken after the Second War and not enough support to fix them yet.
*** Why was the war not enough to show teachers that the system was broken?
*** Heck if I know. Might be because the system was responsible for creating their heroes [[SarcasmMode so obviously it's working just fine]].
*** You know most teens aren't exactly the nicest people when they're in school. Bullying is what happens when you get a bunch of hormone-addled kids together for a long period of time. And as someone who can relate to what Albus went through, when you're bullied, you can sometimes develop a victim complex and assume ''everyone'' is out to get you. It could only have been a handful of people, but Albus just assumed everyone was attacking him over it. Scorpius calls him out for having a chip on his shoulder.
*** Pretty much. Admittedly, this isn't helped by the Sorting. Remember, you're Sorted at least partially by the personality traits you have and admire. Slytherin's trait is Cunning, as distinct from Ravenclaw's Intellect — getting what you want by being sneaky, rather than just by knowledge. That means that being sorted into Slytherin requires either being sneaky (Draco, Lucius) or admiring those who are sneaky (Crabbe, Goyle). This ironically means that the loudmouthed blood purity types are really not very good at being Slytherins...
** I personally think they aren't, just like there were plenty of decent Slytherins back in Harry's era. I have no idea how many students there are in Hogwarts, but lets say about 100 per house. Both Albus and Scorpius are rather shy and thus probably wouldn't try to get to know all 400 Hogwarts students (I, personally, was glad when I learned the names of my 15 or so classmates because I don't socialize much and thus take a long time for that). They'd know each other, and the ones they had the most contact with. It's quite probable that most other students saw they didn't try to socialize with them, so they decided not to talk much with A&S either. That means the only ones they had much interaction with are each other and the bullies, thus everyone we see is either Scorpius, Albus, or a bully. Same thing in the books — Harry and Co didn't try to get to know any Slytherins, so the only Slytherins they mentioned were the bullies, leading readers to believe all Slytherins were like that.
* Why did the rumor that Scorpius is Voldemort's son gain any traction at all? Even within the context of the Wizarding World, it seems wildly implausible. A rumor that Scorpius was being raised to practice Dark magic, or that he'd cast his first Unforgivable before the age of nine, would've been more likely.
** Furthermore, if the Wizarding World has a potion to cure the common cold, a potion to keep werewolves from going insane during the full moon, and a potion to regrow bones, ''why in the name of Merlin do they not have a paternity test''?
*** Two reasons I can think of. 1) they ''do'' have the paternity test, but it's easy to fool by strong enough magic (like Veritserum) or 2) they ''do'' have said paternity test, but there's a bias that if you need to use it, there ''must'' be ''something'' you're hiding; otherwise why would you feel the need to prove anything? The latter is actually something that crops up in our [[RealLife boring real world]]; even if the proof comes back to show nothing bad happened, rumors will still fly and reputations can still get ruined. Just because the truth is proven/provable doesn't mean that reputations won't take damage or even be destroyed outright.
*** So why are paternity tests never mentioned? Draco tried to get law enforcement involved in squashing rumors about his son; on the scale of extreme reactions, running a paternity test and publishing the results in the newspaper is well below approaching the RealLife equivalent of the local police commissioner. If Draco had done that, one would think he would have said something about it when he went to Harry; or that Scorpius would have brought up said paternity test when he was bullied at Hogwarts. Furthermore, the notion that ''everyone'' would dismiss the results of a verified paternity test out of hand stretches credulity. Even if a vocal minority held to the idea that Voldemort was the father, there would still be people who believed the test results and said so. Additionally, I cannot see how the possibility of starting rumors that the Malfoy family had something mysterious to hide would be worse than having your child live with rumors that Wizard Hitler is his father. If Draco was willing to get law enforcement involved, then it seems like he would be willing to deal with the less severe rumors a paternity test caused. His reputation is already damaged; what's one more rumor, if it gets his son off the hook?
*** Furthermore, going back to your first reason: If wizarding paternity tests are so easy to fool, why on earth has no one introduced, or at least attempted, a tamper-proof design?
*** For the same reason no one tried to do the same thing with Veritserum; even if it was supposedly fool-proof with lots of data to back up that claim, people would still cry foul because it's nearly impossible to change deeply entrenched beliefs. It's been believed for so long that everyone who grew up when it could be fooled would have to either die off or be old enough to be going senile for the new beliefs to take. As for why it's never mentioned, it wasn't important to the plot. Maybe it happened off-screen and despite the results showing the rumors were false, people who were on the Light side of the war just trumpeted about how Malfoy ''obviously'' used some sort of magic to skew them in his favor and everyone jumped on the bandwagon. Stupidity isn't illegal and apparently, even the second Wizarding War didn't render slander or libel illegal either.
*** Forgive me, but that's a rather weak defense. It essentially boils down to, "The older people thought it worked just fine, and none of the younger generation could be bothered to speak up to the contrary." If this happened in the Muggle world, we'd still be using [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathode_ray_tube#21st_century_usage tube television]]. Progress happens because people see that an established institution could use improvement, and set about improving it; and if something as useful as a paternity test was demonstrably ''not'' foolproof, then wizards would set about improving it until it was as foolproof as it could be. And what do you mean, it wasn't important to the plot? A good deal of conflict ''and'' characterization derives from the Scorpius rumor, so a paternity test or lack of one would definitely be important to the plot.
*** What I meant was that not every part of the important backstory needs to be shown, especially since we don't know exactly what happened off-screen in canon yet (and if a magical paternity test is canon, I agree it should have at least been mentioned); pardon my phrasing. As for the defense being weak, the Wizarding World knows the absolute minimum necessary about Muggles and the Muggle world for each person's job and trying to be up to date on it like Mr. Weasley (even if he's still backward about it; see how he pronounces words like "electricity" or "telephone" [I know Ron's the one who said it but presumably he learned it from his dad]) is treated as "not being a proper wizard" (heck; ''adults'' don't know what guns are when Muggles have had those for ''centuries'' and can't blend in among Muggles to save their lives). And need I mention how easy it was for Fudge to say "Well, you don't have a teacher yet. Here's my toady to take over your classes. What; qualifications? Because I say so." about Umbridge, potentially depriving what amounts to the police of an entire generation of potential new recruits? I'm pretty sure that Britain moved past that stage years ago if they even went through it at all. I'm not saying that the above logic you state works in RealLife; I'm saying that the Wizarding World is backward enough that it might crop up as an issue more often than it does for us (they're still writing with ''quills''; are actual pens that incompatible with magic?). And actually it took UsefulNotes/WorldWarII to shake the world governments' notion that "when someone causes a war and then loses, you tax the hell out of them and then abandon them to make do." was infallible post-war diplomacy.
*** But Wizarding Britain already went through their WWII equivalent — twenty years prior to this story, actually — so they should at the very least be looking at ways to innovate their society. If the second war didn't cause progress, then wizarding society will head rapidly toward yet another war, yet another Voldemort, because they haven't learned from their mistakes. Furthermore, if a plot point only works because the entire world is holding the IdiotBall, then it's not a very good plot point.
*** Can't say I can argue with that, hence why I'm completely ignoring this play in most, if not all, of my next-gen stories.
*** There are also social reasons for paternity tests not to exist. Who is the ruling class of wizard society? Pure-blood society. What does pure-blood society love doing? Performing revisionism on family trees, either to expunge "filth" from their genealogies or to falsify their supposed right to exist in the pure-blood social circle. The Blacks frequently disowned their children for their transgressions. Squibs are regularly hushed up. Pure-blood extremists like the Death Eaters are perfectly willing to pretend that half-bloods are actually pure-blood if the half-blood in question is talented enough and/or enough of an asset. Non-pure-bloods like Umbridge pretend to be related to pure-blood families to boost their own credentials. Hell, Voldemort himself is a perfect example of a half-blood who needs to pretend to be pure. None of that (barring the disownment of blood traitors, to a degree) is possible if there's a way to magically prove ancestry. So the pure-bloods, ironically, have every reason to ''not'' want a way to prove ancestry beyond a shadow of a doubt.
** The impression I got was that it was mainly being spread amongst gullible Hogwarts students — particularly the 11-14 set. Former Death Eaters must seem like acceptable targets in-universe, hence why the rumour got any traction at all. And since Delphi has been implied to be raising an army, perhaps she encouraged the rumours herself.
*** To reiterate a point I've made before, if the rumors are bad enough that Draco goes to [[DaChief Harry]] and asks him to use his position as Head of Magical Law Enforcement to shut the rumors down, then the parents must be involved in spreading the rumors. Either they're sitting back and letting their kids spread a rumor they think is ridiculous, or they believe the rumor and they're spreading it themselves.
* When Scorpius noticed that Snape's Patronus is a doe, why would he know that it's related to Lily Potter? I don't think it's widespread information. You can argue that he's a bookworm, but surely that wasn't the kind of information you find from a book?
** It's ''possible'' that Harry told Albus who told Scorpius, but this in turn begs the question of how in Merlin's name '''that''' came up in conversation between Harry and Albus, let alone two schoolboys who neither knew Snape personally nor had any reason to know what form his Patronus took.
*** Well, it's not unbelievable that Albus wouldn't be at least a little curious about one of the two men he was named after, and he and Scorpius seem the type to not really hide anything from one another, so they likely know pretty much everything the other knows.
*** Curiosity would explain why Albus knows, but as for Scorpius, I'm imagining Albus saying, "I learned about the guy I got my middle name from today. He was kind of a jerk, but also pretty brave. Died heroically. He had greasy hair and was in love with my grandmother. His Patronus was a doe, and his Social Security Number was...." Point is, it's an odd thing to tell your friend. Unless there's a good and rather specific reason for your friend to know it, that's not the sort of information most people just share.
** Don't forget that the doe patronus is what led Harry to the sword hidden in the frozen lake — and destroying a horcrux. That's a pretty spectacular story to tell. When the kids ask "where did the doe come from?" then comes the explanation and context. And let's be real — the notion that Snape's love for Lily manifested itself in such a way is the sort of information certain members of the public would {{Squee}} over.
* Delphi's existence makes even ''less'' sense when you consider the fact that if Voldemort wanted a human being to serve as a future Horcrux, he could've just used Bellatrix. She's fiercely loyal, absolutely willing, and fully capable of protecting herself, should anyone learn the truth.
** Where are you getting the idea that the only possible basis for her conception was so Voldemort could use her as a Horcrux?
*** I was refuting a common fan theory that she was raised to be a Horcrux. I don't believe I ever said that it was the only possible reason for her existence.
** A great theory for her existence from the brilliant [[https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Creator/AnneBWalsh Anne B. Walsh]]: Delphi was a surrogate baby. Magically conceived and implanted in the woman she mentioned in Cursed Child as bringing her up, as Bellatrix's idea of a last-ditch backup. Voldie probably never even knew about her.
*** I suppose that's plausible, but it does beg the question (brought up earlier) of why the Wizarding World has so many useful spells and trinkets but the notion of a paternity test is entirely foreign to them. In the Muggle world, [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_paternity_testing accurate paternity tests became possible in the 1960s and were further refined in the 1980s]] while [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrogacy the first successful surrogate pregnancy didn't happen until 1985]]. Determining a child's paternity is less risky overall than surrogacy; the danger of surrogacy increases substantially if Bellatrix's pregnancy was already in progress when she implanted Delphi into a surrogate. If Bellatrix was able to have a surrogate deliver Delphi with no apparent risks or complications, then why is it apparently impossible to determine Scorpius' parentage twenty years later? Why develop the magic for surrogacy (not uncommon in the Muggle world, but still far less common than traditional pregnancy) but leave paternity tests (useful for those old pureblood families dogged by rumors of their male heir [[UnusualEuphemism going roadside]] with an attractive Muggle) to be forgotten?
** For those that like to think she was conceived to become an heir, maybe Voldemort planned to declare her as his heir publicly, but he was busy looking for the Elder Wand first. The same night he finally gets it is when everything else starts falling apart for him. In the weeks between getting the wand and his eventual death, he just had too many loose ends to tie up before declaring an heir. Of course since we don't ever see into his POV, all we can go on is guesswork.
* Voldemort rules the UK when Scorpius appears in the main BadFuture. In DH, he made his intentions for the Muggle world clear, both verbally and through that creepy statue in the Ministry building. However, no Muggle nation would go down without a fight; even if the other side had magic, they have guns, explosives, and [=WMDs=] up to and including nukes. If Magical Hitler attempted a hostile takeover of the UK, it would spark a [[TheMagicVersusTechnologyWar magic-vs.-Muggle war]] that would, in all likelihood, rage for years. Even if it ended with the majority of Muggle Britain evacuating or dead, the UK's allies would continue fighting Magical Hitler....to the extent they were able, as some of them would likely be embroiled in civil wars against their ''own'' pureblood extremists. Basically, the whole world should either be [[TheyWastedAPerfectlyGoodPlot in the middle of a quarter-century-long war pitting magic against technology]], or [[AfterTheEnd a post-apocalyptic wasteland littered with magical and radioactive fallout]].
** For all we know, there's a spell to disable nukes. Also, wizards would undoubtedly have an edge over Muggles. Wizards can easily disarm, stun or kill even armed Muggles with minimal effort. Not to mention, they have methods of concealment and transport that can evade even the most advanced Muggle surveillance systems (and considering that Voldemort would have started taking over Britain in the late 90's, the survelliance tools and weaponry available to Muggles would be even more limited than they would be today). So in a Muggle vs. Wizards war, the Muggles would lose easily. Having said that, judging by dialogue in the scene with Scorpios, Muggle society continues to exist and hasn't been totally taken over by Voldemort's reign, since Draco claims he would have to bribe the British PM to cover up the killings of Muggles.
*** First off, assuming that magic is even capable of disabling a nuke [[UsefulNotes/NuclearWeapons is a pretty big assumption, given how powerful those things are.]] It ''could'' be possible, but it doesn't seem likely, especially since wizard society is so distanced from Muggle society that Arthur Weasley thinks bath plugs are an amazing invention. Muggleborns are probably the only ones who even know what a nuclear weapon ''is,'' let alone how powerful it can be; and if one of them has an inkling of how to disarm one (which isn't likely, as they left the Muggle world long before they could pursue a career in nuclear engineering) they aren't going to tell Voldemort. Second, war spurs technological innovation. Just look at all of the inventions that came out of or were fine-tuned by WWII. If Muggles were faced with a magical threat, they would race to catch up—which wouldn't be as impossible as it seems, since the fact that Muggleborns were tortured for sport would cause many of them and their supporters to flee to the Muggles, offering their magic in exchange for protection. Magically enhanced weaponry would follow quickly.
*** As far as we know, it would only take someone skilled in Transfiguration to disarm a nuke... by turning it into a desk or or a cup or a tortoise. We know elemental transmutation doesn't necessarily require alchemical knowledge or a Philosopher's Stone, as the first lesson first year Transfiguration students are taught is to turn a matchstick (made of wood, phosphorous, sulfur, and a few more compounds not including steel or nickel) into a needle (modern ones are made of high carbon steel and nickel plated).
** I think you're ''seriously'' underestimating just how powerful radioactive energy is, and how potent a poison radiation is. Turning a matchstick into a needle would require getting rid of ''very'' small amounts of phosphorus, sulfur, etc.; turning a nuke into something harmless would require getting rid of enough energy to wipe out a city, and enough poison to kill people in the surrounding areas.
*** You're assuming that there WOULD be a war, when in all likelihood, every important muggle leader would have likely been imperiused long before anyone knew there was a threat. They have no way of countering invisibility cloaks and apparition, either, so applying imperius to wide swaths of important politicians and military leaders would be trivial with just a slight amount of planning. With a thorough enough sweep, Voldemort would have little trouble taking over.
*** Heat sensors/infrared goggles may or may not be deterred by an invisibility cloak, but a pressure pad-equipped floor or a well placed, nearly invisible itself tripwire attached to a Claymore mine would do just fine. As for the problem of Apparition, assuming that we non-magic folk could not devise a barrier to it through some form of advanced physics, it's simply a matter of attrition. A wizard could apparate into a room and slaughter a dozen people with relative ease, but if he's unlucky even for half a second, or delays just a little bit, one well placed bullet ends the threat. Remember, these are people whose "duels" involve projectiles so slow the best defense against many of them is to just dodge. And considering how few wizards there are relative to Muggles, even with an average kill ratio of a hundred to one they would lose before they wiped out conventional muggle armed forces. A war of attrition is both one we are accustomed to fighting and far better off to attempt.
*** DH implies that an Invisibility Cloak wouldn't fool heat sensors and infrared, by showing that it doesn't fool Nagini, who is able to see Harry and Hermione when the two approach the Potter home under the true Cloak of Invisibility. They are invisible to sight, but any other sense is still able to locate someone under an Invisibility Cloak, as characters are shown to be able to hear, smell, and touch Cloaked individuals.
*** That's not even factoring in the potential damage that guerrilla warfare could cause. If a few Muggle freedom fighters learned that the people responsible for killing their families were headquartered in a hidden mansion somewhere near Wiltshire, those freedom fighters wouldn't shrug and say "Oh, well, we don't know where they are, so we're [=SOL=]." No, they'd get the best approximate coordinates available, pack the perimeter with explosives, and let 'er rip.
*** Voldemort has, at maximum, a hundred Death Eaters at his disposal. The population of the UK was, in 1996 (the year the Second Wizarding War began) 58.17 million. Even if one Death Eater can Imperius a hundred people at a time (which seems like a ridiculously high number, but let's go with it) that's only 10,000 people. Now, 10,000 people ''can'' do a lot of damage, but the Muggles who aren't Imperiused are going to fight back, or go into hiding. The Muggle Prime Minister knows witches and wizards exist, so when 10,000 of his countrymen start committing murders and other felonies out of the blue, he's going to remember that the last Minister of Magic told him that there were a lot of dangerous witches and wizards on the loose, and he's going to put two and two together. Even if the PM doesn't have a contingency plan in place for this eventuality (and if he's a leader worth his salt, he absolutely does; governments have plans in place for everything from nuclear war to pandemics) he's going to scrap one together to try and keep as many of his citizens alive as possible. Finally, remember that while a Muggle can be Imperiused, the act of being Imperiused does not endow them with the same powers as the wizard who cursed them. They're still just as fragile and fallible as they were when they had control of their own minds. So if an Imperiused Muggle goes after a police officer, that police officer can still neutralize that Muggle by ordinary means. In other words, yes, simple survival instincts will ensure that there will be a war.
*** Going by your assumption that a Death Eater can Imperius 100 people at a time, assume instead that they're Imperiusing unsuspecting wizards. 100 Death Eaters Imperius 10,000 wizards, who then Imperius 100 Muggles apiece? That's 1,000,000 Muggles. You have a pretty solid chunk of the Muggle population under Death Eater control instantly. Then each of the Imperiused wizards can move on to controlling or killing another 100 Muggles apiece.
** So if it's that easy, why didn't Voldemort just have his Death Eaters do that in ''Deathly Hallows''? Seems like it would've been much more prudent to simply Imperius hundreds of thousands of Muggles to keep the wizards in line, instead of going the puppet regime route. And there's no textual evidence that such an absurdly high limit is even possible.
*** Furthermore, if the Death Eaters ''are'' capable of Imperiusing large numbers of people at one time, then why did they not simply Imperius every important member of the Ministry during the final book? It would have solved a lot of problems. Additionally, it seems that there is some difficulty in Imperiusing more than one or two people at once; in HBP, there was a point where Draco had both Rosemerta and Katie Bell Imperiused, and Rosemerta was the only one who acted naturally. This could be attributed to Draco's lack of skill with the curse, his internal conflict over what he was doing, or both (depending on your interpretation of his character), but it does seem to set a rather small limit on the number of people a witch or wizard can Imperius at one time.
*** And then in DH, Harry has (during his first attempt at using the spell) no trouble using the Imperius Curse on Travers and Gornuk. Both behave under his control exactly has he directs them to. It requires very little of his concentration to keep them under control, likely because neither has had training in fighting the curse. This troper would say that Katie did not act naturally because Draco forced her to do something that Katie would never have done - and she was immediately spotted as being Imperiused by someone who knew her and who knew that Katie would never agree to deliver a secret parcel to a mystery recipient willingly. Note that skill at the Imperius curse doesn't guarantee that one acts naturally, it guarantees that the victim follows your orders. This is demonstrated in almost every situation we see the curse being used, because only Rosmerta was under specific command to act naturally. The curse also requires a fair amount of willpower to resist, much less to throw off. We are only ever shown the curse being thrown off by Harry, and when Gornuk is hit by the Thief's Downfall, which breaks all enchantments.
** And yet one of Voldemort's Death Eaters announces that he has successfully placed an Imperius Curse on Thicknesse, as if it would have been difficult to manage. The whole thing is riddled with inconsistencies.
* In a series where death is supposed to be looked at as the next big adventure, is there any real reason why everyone is so adamant that Delphi can't just get a MercyKill? It's built up as no one wanting to sink to the level of murder, but isn't it a bit different in this case, as she's ''asking'' to be killed? I realize that she can't have death as a means of escaping other punishment, but that's not the reason any character gives for their refusal to do it.
** In Britain, folks have a different attitude to the death penalty. It's viewed as barbaric and archaic. And that's what killing Delphi would be. The Ministry broke a lot of rules and played dirty at the end of the first war - trying and imprisoning several people without a trial and allowing Aurors to kill without concern. So it's entirely reasonable that none of the survivors of the second war want to repeat the same mistakes as their predecessors. Delphi is to be sent to Azkaban to properly pay for her crimes.
*** That logic kind of falls apart when one considers the fact that, a mere twenty-two years prior to this story, Azkaban was a PlaceWorseThanDeath where an untold number of prisoners had been DrivenToSuicide by ''starvation''—one of the slowest and most painful methods of death. One step beyond that punishment was the Dementor's Kiss, a death sentence in all but name, where although the victim would still be breathing, they were quite literally an EmptyShell, unresponsive and incapable of recovery. Azkaban might be empty of dementors now, but there still have to be people who would see killing Delphi or having her Kissed as the better option, compared to leaving her in a prison from which she can potentially escape.
*** With that argument though, that just falls under the Real World issue of whether it's better or not to deliver the Death Penalty to a Criminal or give them a life sentence in general. Without a Wand, and since it's a Prison without Dementors now (I'd presume that there's just Wizard Guards now), Azkaban's basically just a normal Prison with Guards that know Magic now. So honestly, you can argue that Delphi escaping is just as likely as a normal person escaping from a normal prison really. And that kind of logic could just as easily lead to the argument that "We might as well not have prisons then". It's a more humane way of keeping Criminals away from Society now, and again, as said before, the Survivors of the Second War wouldn't want to play dirty and kill, especially when imprisoning people is a far less torturous means of keeping Criminals from harming people in this era.
*** Whether the death penalty is warranted or not is a completely separate and irrelevant matter, as the books make clear that mercy kills aren't viewed as the same kind of soul-twisting evil that outright murder is -- that was one reason why Dumbledore wanted Snape to kill him as opposed to making Draco Malfoy do it. Had the heroes told Delphi, "We can't kill you because you've taken the life of another person, and you need to face the punishment for your crimes according to the law," that would've been a better answer than "We can't kill you because we're the good guys and even in these circumstances, killing you would be wrong."
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
Spelling/grammar fix(es)
Changed line(s) 4 (click to see context) from:
* How can Delphini's existence be a secret? According to WordOfGod, there's a quill in Hogwarts that records the births of all wizarding children in the UK. That's why Muggleborns get Hogwarts letters and Squibs don't. So did the Death Eaters use a Confundus Charm on it?
to:
* How can Delphini's existence be a secret? According to WordOfGod, there's a quill in Hogwarts that records the births of all wizarding children in the UK. That's why Muggleborns Muggle-Borns get Hogwarts letters and Squibs don't. So did the Death Eaters use a Confundus Charm on it?
Changed line(s) 8 (click to see context) from:
*** But "Delphi Riddle" isn't an ordinary wizard name. Having her name pop up on Hogwarts' enrollment list eleven years after the War would be like having "Marvin Hitler" or "Jethro Mengele" show up on a list of incoming freshmen at the University of Berlin in the early 1960s. Even if there's some way to prove she's not related to the genocidal maniac everyone remembers, someone is going to ask questions.
to:
*** But "Delphi Riddle" isn't an ordinary wizard name. Having her name pop up on Hogwarts' Hogwarts's enrollment list eleven years after the War would be like having "Marvin Hitler" or "Jethro Mengele" show up on a list of incoming freshmen at the University of Berlin in the early 1960s. Even if there's some way to prove she's not related to the genocidal maniac everyone remembers, someone is going to ask questions.
Changed line(s) 12,13 (click to see context) from:
*** We don't know if her official name is 'Delphi Riddle'. Its more likely she would have been given some other last name if the intent was to conceal her identity. And the quill recorded that name.
*** So why did no one question why she didn't show up at Hogwarts, register at another school, or homeschool? It's probably safe to assume that parents of children opting out of Hogwarts, even if it's to homeschool, need to submit some sort of paperwork documenting their choice. If the Rowles didn't do this, they could be suspected of [[AbusiveParents child abuse]] and investigated by the authorities; if they did, then they would still have to reveal Delphi's existence to ''someone.''
*** So why did no one question why she didn't show up at Hogwarts, register at another school, or homeschool? It's probably safe to assume that parents of children opting out of Hogwarts, even if it's to homeschool, need to submit some sort of paperwork documenting their choice. If the Rowles didn't do this, they could be suspected of [[AbusiveParents child abuse]] and investigated by the authorities; if they did, then they would still have to reveal Delphi's existence to ''someone.''
to:
*** We don't know if her official name is 'Delphi Riddle'. Its It's more likely she would have been given some other last name if the intent was to conceal her identity. And the quill recorded that name.
*** So why did no one question why she didn't show up at Hogwarts, register at another school, or homeschool? It's probably safe to assume that parents of children opting out of Hogwarts, even if it's to homeschool, need to submit some sort of paperwork documenting their choice. If the Rowles didn't do this, they could be suspected of [[AbusiveParents child abuse]] and be investigated by the authorities; if they did, then they would still have to reveal Delphi's existence to ''someone.''
*** So why did no one question why she didn't show up at Hogwarts, register at another school, or homeschool? It's probably safe to assume that parents of children opting out of Hogwarts, even if it's to homeschool, need to submit some sort of paperwork documenting their choice. If the Rowles didn't do this, they could be suspected of [[AbusiveParents child abuse]] and be investigated by the authorities; if they did, then they would still have to reveal Delphi's existence to ''someone.''
Changed line(s) 43 (click to see context) from:
** An heir would be out of character, but a minion makes more sense. After all, the plan was for him to be immortal, not his followers. If one of his followers wants to give birth to his child, the child can be a follower from birth. Minions don't last forever, and therefore have to be replaced at some point.
to:
** An heir would be out of character, but a minion makes more sense. After all, the plan was for him to be immortal, not his followers. If one of his followers wants to give birth to his child, the child can be a follower from birth. Minions don't last forever, forever and therefore have to be replaced at some point.
Changed line(s) 56 (click to see context) from:
** How about he wanted to try using the power of love but didn't know anything on the subject? I mean how many time was he defeated because someone use the blood magic bond between family, maybe he wants a piece of that action? It isn't that out of character if you remember he thought changing his wand was how he can kill Harry despite not being at all how wands magic work.
to:
** How about he wanted to try using the power of love but didn't know anything on the subject? I mean how many time times was he defeated because someone use the blood magic bond between family, maybe he wants a piece of that action? It isn't that out of character if you remember he thought changing his wand was how he can kill Harry despite not being at all how wands magic work.
Changed line(s) 58 (click to see context) from:
*** Yes the wands didn't burn Voldemort's face when he tried killing an eleven years old or stopped him from finding Harry when he was growing up. This is not an abstract concept that reflected his killing curse the PowerOfLove is a real magic in the wizard world, one that Voldemort has so many reason to try understanding after the multiple defeat against it. Even if it's just "let's have a kid maybe it will boost my wizard power" reasoning at least he tried learning from his defeat.
to:
*** Yes the wands didn't burn Voldemort's face when he tried killing an eleven years old eleven-year-old or stopped him from finding Harry when he was growing up. This is not an abstract concept that reflected his killing curse the PowerOfLove is a real magic in the wizard world, one that Voldemort has so many reason reasons to try understanding after the multiple defeat defeats against it. Even if it's just "let's have a kid maybe it will boost my wizard power" reasoning at least he tried learning from his defeat.
Changed line(s) 60,62 (click to see context) from:
*** Well he already had plan for the Malfoy after Lucius screwed up the prophecy and Bellatrix is kind of useless aside of her devotion so yes let her off for seven months to give a baby and blood magic instead of having her doing whatever she was doing during most of her offscreen time in the last book.
*** "Useless aside from her devotion"? She's the undisputed master of the Cruciatus Curse. She made it through Azkaban without giving into despair, and left that prison only slightly more insane than when she arrived. In ''Deathly Hallows,'' Harry's narration calls her "a witch of prodigious skill and no conscience." Bellatrix is many things, but useless is not one of them.
*** And as Snape said: it served nothing but the gesture was cute. Did Voldemort put her in charge of school where they teach Cruciatus spell? No he asked the Carrow to do it. Was she ever put in charge of leading an attack? No, she is too insane. Even Macnair had a bigger role than her in the scheme of thing by convincing the Giants to join their side. But hey [[InformedAbility narration said she was good]].
*** "Useless aside from her devotion"? She's the undisputed master of the Cruciatus Curse. She made it through Azkaban without giving into despair, and left that prison only slightly more insane than when she arrived. In ''Deathly Hallows,'' Harry's narration calls her "a witch of prodigious skill and no conscience." Bellatrix is many things, but useless is not one of them.
*** And as Snape said: it served nothing but the gesture was cute. Did Voldemort put her in charge of school where they teach Cruciatus spell? No he asked the Carrow to do it. Was she ever put in charge of leading an attack? No, she is too insane. Even Macnair had a bigger role than her in the scheme of thing by convincing the Giants to join their side. But hey [[InformedAbility narration said she was good]].
to:
*** Well Well, he already had plan plans for the Malfoy Malfoys after Lucius screwed up the prophecy and Bellatrix is kind of useless aside of from her devotion so yes devotion, so, yes, let her off for seven months to give a baby and blood magic instead of having her doing whatever she was doing during most of her offscreen time in the last book.
*** "Useless aside from her devotion"? She's the undisputed master of the Cruciatus Curse. She made it through Azkaban without giving intodespair, despair and left that prison only slightly more insane than when she arrived. In ''Deathly Hallows,'' Harry's narration calls her "a witch of prodigious skill and no conscience." Bellatrix is many things, but useless is not one of them.
*** And as Snape said: it served nothing but the gesture was cute. Did Voldemort put her in charge of the school where they teach the Cruciatus spell?No No, he asked the Carrow Carrows to do it. Was she ever put in charge of leading an attack? No, she is too insane. Even Macnair had a bigger role than her in the scheme of thing things by convincing the Giants to join their side. But hey [[InformedAbility narration said she was good]].
*** "Useless aside from her devotion"? She's the undisputed master of the Cruciatus Curse. She made it through Azkaban without giving into
*** And as Snape said: it served nothing but the gesture was cute. Did Voldemort put her in charge of the school where they teach the Cruciatus spell?
Changed line(s) 64,65 (click to see context) from:
*** She had trouble against 15 years old kids during the department battle, she died during the battle of Hogwarts and torturing someone to insanity can be done ''without'' magic. Like sure she isn't TheMillstone but having Voldemort think he can't find a replacement for her when the only tasks given to her is hurt people and "prodigious skill" is kind of a reach when none of the scene given here is outside regular Death Eaters (again, a nobody like Macnair recruited Giants to their cause and Wormtail, who Voldemort would love to see dead, displayed far better skills than her). So yes using her as part of a magic ritual instead of an enforcer sounds like something Voldemort will do.
*** The 15 year old kids were losing until the Order showed up, even then the Death Eaters still had an advantage until Dumbledore himself arrived. Also Bellatrix was the only Death Eater who deflected Dumbledore's spell and the only one that escaped. She IS canonically skilled, at least in dueling.
*** The 15 year old kids were losing until the Order showed up, even then the Death Eaters still had an advantage until Dumbledore himself arrived. Also Bellatrix was the only Death Eater who deflected Dumbledore's spell and the only one that escaped. She IS canonically skilled, at least in dueling.
to:
*** She had trouble against 15 years old 15-year-old kids during the department battle, she died during the battle of Hogwarts Hogwarts, and torturing someone to insanity can be done ''without'' magic. Like sure she isn't TheMillstone but having Voldemort think he can't find a replacement for her when the only tasks given to her is hurt people and "prodigious skill" is kind of a reach when none of the scene scenes given here is are outside regular Death Eaters (again, a nobody like Macnair recruited Giants to their cause and Wormtail, who Voldemort would love to see dead, displayed far better skills than her). So yes using her as part of a magic ritual instead of an enforcer sounds like something Voldemort will do.
*** The 15 year old kids were losing until the Order showed up, even then the Death Eaters still had an advantage until Dumbledore himself arrived.Also Also, Bellatrix was the only Death Eater who deflected Dumbledore's spell and the only one that escaped. She IS canonically skilled, at least in dueling.
*** The 15 year old kids were losing until the Order showed up, even then the Death Eaters still had an advantage until Dumbledore himself arrived.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 345,346 (click to see context) from:
*** Pensieves are rare, and only used by powerful wizards, ones skilled in Legilimency and Occlumency. There are most certainly no therapists in the Wizarding World though. Since they are so thoroughly conditioned to regard wizarding society as perfect and beyond reproach, they probably think therapists are a silly muggle concept.[[/folder]]
to:
*** Pensieves are rare, and only used by powerful wizards, ones skilled in Legilimency and Occlumency. There are most certainly no therapists in the Wizarding World though. Since they wizards are so thoroughly conditioned to regard wizarding society as perfect and beyond reproach, they probably think therapists are a silly muggle concept.[[/folder]]
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 345 (click to see context) from:
[[/folder]]
to:
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
A Date With Rosie Palms is now a redirect to an index
Changed line(s) 40 (click to see context) from:
*** Voldemort is technically still human, and sex is on the bottom level of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. He's either on ADateWithRosiePalms or he's sleeping with his very willing underling who is openly obsessed with him.
to:
*** Voldemort is technically still human, and sex is on the bottom level of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. He's either on ADateWithRosiePalms masturbating or he's sleeping with his very willing underling who is openly obsessed with him.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
**** Just because crappy things happen to you doesnt automatically mean you get PTSD. Plus half of the crappy things you've listed are hypoyetical whatifs with no evidence in the books that they did happen, so the idea that he doesnt have PTSD is perfectly valid.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 7 (click to see context) from:
** It doesn't seem as if anyone actually checks the book because it's perfectly capable. According to the Pottermore post, humans hands have not touched it in centuries. It's unlikely "Delphi Riddle" would really stand out amongst hundreds of thousands of names any way. Ask anyone who has ever worked in an enrollment office how many people they can recall off the top of their head. Exactly.
to:
** It doesn't seem as if anyone actually checks the book because it's perfectly capable. According to the Pottermore post, humans human hands have not touched it in centuries. It's unlikely "Delphi Riddle" would really stand out amongst hundreds of thousands of names any way. Ask anyone who has ever worked in an enrollment office how many people they can recall off the top of their head. Exactly.
Changed line(s) 46 (click to see context) from:
** Willingly having a child is a bit of a stretch given Voldemort's ideals. Any kid he had would be a Half-Blood like himself, which he hates. He expected Bella to marry and reproduce with Rodolphus so as to bring forth more Pureblood children, afterall, despite neither of them actually caring for one another. It is odd that he would have a child. Logically, either he did plan on using her as a horcrux or minion (but begs the question of why, when he wanted only 7 in the first place), he didn't intend on reproducing after a sexual encounter with Bella (which seems out of character in general) or, Rodolphus is lying and Delphi isn't Voldemort's daughter at all.
to:
** Willingly having a child is a bit of a stretch given Voldemort's ideals. Any kid he had would be a Half-Blood like himself, which he hates. He expected Bella to marry and reproduce with Rodolphus so as to bring forth more Pureblood children, afterall, after all, despite neither of them actually caring for one another. It is odd that he would have a child. Logically, either he did plan on using her as a horcrux or minion (but begs the question of why, when he wanted only 7 in the first place), he didn't intend on reproducing after a sexual encounter with Bella (which seems out of character in general) or, Rodolphus is lying and Delphi isn't Voldemort's daughter at all.
Changed line(s) 51 (click to see context) from:
*** Because there was nothing left that could act as a symbol of Voldemort's status as Slytherin's heir. Voldemort's ego drove him to use symbols of what he perceived as his own majesty as horcrux's. Bellatrix represented none of that, but a human of Slytherin's bloodline would. Futhermore, Dumbledore noted that Voldemort had far more influence over Nagini that is usual for a parselmouth, which makes sense when one remembers that a living horcrux has a mental connection to the horcrux creator. So, raised from birth with the Dark Lord's mental manipulations and possession, a human horcrux would be little more than a slave. And with their capacity for magic, Voldemort would effectively be able to be in two locations at once. That could be why she was just called 'The Augury' in the evil timeline, she wasn't a person, not really, just a puppet for Voldemort.
to:
*** Because there was nothing left that could act as a symbol of Voldemort's status as Slytherin's heir. Voldemort's ego drove him to use symbols of what he perceived as his own majesty as horcrux's. Bellatrix represented none of that, but a human of Slytherin's bloodline would. Futhermore, Furthermore, Dumbledore noted that Voldemort had far more influence over Nagini that is usual for a parselmouth, which makes sense when one remembers that a living horcrux has a mental connection to the horcrux creator. So, raised from birth with the Dark Lord's mental manipulations and possession, a human horcrux would be little more than a slave. And with their capacity for magic, Voldemort would effectively be able to be in two locations at once. That could be why she was just called 'The Augury' in the evil timeline, she wasn't a person, not really, just a puppet for Voldemort.
Changed line(s) 62 (click to see context) from:
*** And as Snape said: it served nothing but the gesture was cute. Did Voldemort put her in charge of school where they teach Cuciatus spell? No he asked the Carrow to do it. Was she ever put in charge of leading an attack? No, she is too insane. Even Macnair had a bigger role than her in the scheme of thing by convincing the Giants to join their side. But hey [[InformedAbility narration said she was good]].
to:
*** And as Snape said: it served nothing but the gesture was cute. Did Voldemort put her in charge of school where they teach Cuciatus Cruciatus spell? No he asked the Carrow to do it. Was she ever put in charge of leading an attack? No, she is too insane. Even Macnair had a bigger role than her in the scheme of thing by convincing the Giants to join their side. But hey [[InformedAbility narration said she was good]].
Changed line(s) 64 (click to see context) from:
*** She had trouble against 15 years old kids during the department battle, she died during the battle of Hogwart and torturing someone to insanity can be done ''without'' magic. Like sure she isn't TheMillstone but having Voldemort think he can't find a replacement for her when the only tasks given to her is hurt people and "prodigious skill" is kind of a reach when none of the scene given here is outside regular Death Eaters (again, a nobody like Macnair recruited Giants to their cause and Wormtail, who Voldemort would love to see dead, displayed far better skills than her). So yes using her as part of a magic ritual instead of an enforcer sounds like something Voldemort will do.
to:
*** She had trouble against 15 years old kids during the department battle, she died during the battle of Hogwart Hogwarts and torturing someone to insanity can be done ''without'' magic. Like sure she isn't TheMillstone but having Voldemort think he can't find a replacement for her when the only tasks given to her is hurt people and "prodigious skill" is kind of a reach when none of the scene given here is outside regular Death Eaters (again, a nobody like Macnair recruited Giants to their cause and Wormtail, who Voldemort would love to see dead, displayed far better skills than her). So yes using her as part of a magic ritual instead of an enforcer sounds like something Voldemort will do.
Changed line(s) 115 (click to see context) from:
* Why do a lot of people take the rumor that Scorpius is Voldemort's son seriously? I could see conspiracy theorists taking the rumor seriously but having it circulating throughout the mainstream population is unlikely. First of all, it’s established that time turners can’t turn back time that far so why would a lot of people overestimated time turner’s abilities? Also, why would the Malfoys go through the process of time traveling and approach Voldemort in order to him to impregnated Astoria? From the wizarding war, Draco was very fearful of Voldemort in the knowledge that he was disposable pawn so why would he want to meet Voldemort in the past considering the risks and dangers? Time travel itself is already dangerous even back a few hours and without Voldemort so traveling back several years and meeting Voldemort alone would interfere with the past and would adversely affect the future. Voldemort might kill future Malfoy or torture information out of Malfoy.. In addition, Scorpius is practically a splitting image of young Draco Malfoy down to the hair and face for physical evidence. Even if Malfoy is infertile, why would he go through all the trouble of traveling back and asking Voldemort to be the surrogate father? Are there no eligible wizards in the present day?
to:
* Why do a lot of people take the rumor that Scorpius is Voldemort's son seriously? I could see conspiracy theorists taking the rumor seriously but having it circulating throughout the mainstream population is unlikely. First of all, it’s established that time turners can’t turn back time that far so why would a lot of people overestimated time turner’s abilities? Also, why would the Malfoys go through the process of time traveling and approach Voldemort in order to him to impregnated Astoria? From the wizarding war, Draco was very fearful of Voldemort in the knowledge that he was disposable pawn so why would he want to meet Voldemort in the past considering the risks and dangers? Time travel itself is already dangerous even back a few hours and without Voldemort so traveling back several years and meeting Voldemort alone would interfere with the past and would adversely affect the future. Voldemort might kill future Malfoy or torture information out of Malfoy..Malfoy. In addition, Scorpius is practically a splitting image of young Draco Malfoy down to the hair and face for physical evidence. Even if Malfoy is infertile, why would he go through all the trouble of traveling back and asking Voldemort to be the surrogate father? Are there no eligible wizards in the present day?
Changed line(s) 151 (click to see context) from:
*** Pettigrew wasn't mis-Sorted. He may lack Gryffindor bravery, but he has the Gryffindor desire to show off, be important, be the centre of attention... Not everyone in Ravenclaw is book smart, not every Hufflepuff is loyal, not every Slytherin is ambitious, and not every Gryffindor is brave. Some people simply embody the negative traits of a House and thus, belong there. Gryffindor house has a lot of people who just like attention. Ron and the twins are a prime example of this, and many Gryffindors are very self-important, like Percy and McLaggen. There's more than just one facet to a House, and they have overlap in places.
to:
*** Pettigrew wasn't mis-Sorted. He may lack Gryffindor bravery, but he has the Gryffindor desire to show off, be important, be the centre of attention... Not everyone in Ravenclaw is book smart, not every Hufflepuff is loyal, not every Slytherin is ambitious, and not every Gryffindor is brave. Some people simply embody the negative traits of a House and thus, belong there. Gryffindor house has a lot of people who just like attention. Ron and the twins are a prime example of this, and many Gryffindors are very self-important, like Percy and McLaggen.[=McLaggen=]. There's more than just one facet to a House, and they have overlap in places.
Changed line(s) 261 (click to see context) from:
* During the scene where [[spoiler: Albus Potter rejects Harry's gift of the baby blanket and throws it against the wall and tells Harry to the effect of, “I wish you weren't my dad!”]], why didn't Harry just ''slap'' him? I know he would be veering close to Vernon Dursley territory, but after that KickTheDog moment? Why didn't Harry do something beyond a stern telling off?
to:
* During the scene where [[spoiler: Albus [[spoiler:Albus Potter rejects Harry's gift of the baby blanket and throws it against the wall and tells Harry to the effect of, “I wish you weren't my dad!”]], why didn't Harry just ''slap'' him? I know he would be veering close to Vernon Dursley territory, but after that KickTheDog moment? Why didn't Harry do something beyond a stern telling off?
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
Removed back and forth natter
Changed line(s) 192,199 (click to see context) from:
** That's like saying Harry wasn't the only one capable of defeating Voldemort. Technically true (despite what Voldemort himself believed) but they both possessed qualities that aided them greatly in bringing those situations to a successful conclusion. I'll note that Neville was the leader of the Hogwart's resistance during the seventh book, and that things would have been a LOT more difficult without that groundwork.
*** Sure, but running Dumbledore's Army and destroying a Horcrux are two different, not necessarily related, things. I'd even argue that pulling the Sword of Gryffindor from the Sorting Hat could have been accomplished even if the DA had never existed, or had fizzled out under the Carrows. The DA certainly helped bring down Voldemort, but it was destroying his Horcruxes that defeated him for good. Anyone with the right tools could've destroyed Voldemort's Horcruxes. Anyone with the right tools could've killed Voldemort. Harry and Neville did great things during the war, but if we're being brutally honest here, a Muggle with a gun and the element of surprise could've killed Voldemort. Taking Harry and Neville out of the picture does not, in any way, guarantee Voldemort would win the war. There ''have'' to be other factors at play.
*** This is overthinking, yes there are many possibilities, is also possible that a lightning strikes Nagini at the same time that a meteorite falls over Voldermort, unlikely but not entirely impossible. So yes, is possible that another person takes the sword from the hat even if Neville is not around and another one kills Voldemort, the point is that even by fractions of a second the slightest change in the timeline can go the other way around. So let’s assume that Neville is dead and still Lavender takes the sword out of the hat and misses Nagini for an inch, there you have it, Voldemort can’t be killed by Harry. The circumstances have to be exactly the same even by the most insignificant detail in order to produce the same result.
** I have one thing to say to that: ''Prove it.'' Prove to me that the circumstances have to be ''exactly'' the same. Prove to me that Neville was the only one capable of wielding the Sword of Gryffindor correctly. Because as it stands, your reasoning is seriously grasping at straws.
*** You're missing the point. It's simple: Yes, it IS possible for someone other than Neville to save the day. But by coincidence, no one did. Scorpius ended up in a world where Voldemort got lucky and won. Where are you getting this idea that, just because something is POSSIBLE, it HAS to happen?
** I think you missed the point. Yes, a lot of things could happen, a zombie apocalypse could happen that ruined Voldemort plans. Or they could avoid Cedric’s death, Cedric does not turn into a Death Eater and on the contrary he became best friend of Neville and in one unwanted quiditch match he accidentally hits Neville's face affecting his eyesight and Neville fails to kill Nagini when wielding the sword. Point is, a lot of things happened that made Voldemort’s defeat possible, very '''very''' specific things in very specific order and in the exact time. Once this delicate equilibrium was broken a series of circumstances happened and one of them was that no one else took the sword out of the hat or if they did they fail to kill Nagini with it. Thinking that the exact set of circumstances could had happened in an alternate universe, well yes is possible, but that’s not what happened in '''this''' particular timeline.
*** ….I give up. This debate has veered too far off the rails.
*** Somebody needs to write a fanfic about a zombie apocalypse interrupting the war with Voldemort.
*** Sure, but running Dumbledore's Army and destroying a Horcrux are two different, not necessarily related, things. I'd even argue that pulling the Sword of Gryffindor from the Sorting Hat could have been accomplished even if the DA had never existed, or had fizzled out under the Carrows. The DA certainly helped bring down Voldemort, but it was destroying his Horcruxes that defeated him for good. Anyone with the right tools could've destroyed Voldemort's Horcruxes. Anyone with the right tools could've killed Voldemort. Harry and Neville did great things during the war, but if we're being brutally honest here, a Muggle with a gun and the element of surprise could've killed Voldemort. Taking Harry and Neville out of the picture does not, in any way, guarantee Voldemort would win the war. There ''have'' to be other factors at play.
*** This is overthinking, yes there are many possibilities, is also possible that a lightning strikes Nagini at the same time that a meteorite falls over Voldermort, unlikely but not entirely impossible. So yes, is possible that another person takes the sword from the hat even if Neville is not around and another one kills Voldemort, the point is that even by fractions of a second the slightest change in the timeline can go the other way around. So let’s assume that Neville is dead and still Lavender takes the sword out of the hat and misses Nagini for an inch, there you have it, Voldemort can’t be killed by Harry. The circumstances have to be exactly the same even by the most insignificant detail in order to produce the same result.
** I have one thing to say to that: ''Prove it.'' Prove to me that the circumstances have to be ''exactly'' the same. Prove to me that Neville was the only one capable of wielding the Sword of Gryffindor correctly. Because as it stands, your reasoning is seriously grasping at straws.
*** You're missing the point. It's simple: Yes, it IS possible for someone other than Neville to save the day. But by coincidence, no one did. Scorpius ended up in a world where Voldemort got lucky and won. Where are you getting this idea that, just because something is POSSIBLE, it HAS to happen?
** I think you missed the point. Yes, a lot of things could happen, a zombie apocalypse could happen that ruined Voldemort plans. Or they could avoid Cedric’s death, Cedric does not turn into a Death Eater and on the contrary he became best friend of Neville and in one unwanted quiditch match he accidentally hits Neville's face affecting his eyesight and Neville fails to kill Nagini when wielding the sword. Point is, a lot of things happened that made Voldemort’s defeat possible, very '''very''' specific things in very specific order and in the exact time. Once this delicate equilibrium was broken a series of circumstances happened and one of them was that no one else took the sword out of the hat or if they did they fail to kill Nagini with it. Thinking that the exact set of circumstances could had happened in an alternate universe, well yes is possible, but that’s not what happened in '''this''' particular timeline.
*** ….I give up. This debate has veered too far off the rails.
*** Somebody needs to write a fanfic about a zombie apocalypse interrupting the war with Voldemort.
to:
*** This is overthinking, yes there are many possibilities, is also possible that a lightning strikes Nagini at the same time that a meteorite falls over Voldermort, unlikely but not entirely impossible. So yes, is possible that another person takes the sword from the hat even if Neville is not around and another one kills Voldemort, the point is that even by fractions of a second the slightest change in the timeline can go the other way around. So let’s assume that Neville is dead and still Lavender takes the sword out of the hat and misses Nagini for an inch, there you have it, Voldemort can’t be killed by Harry. The circumstances have to be exactly the same even by the most insignificant detail in order to produce the same result.
** I have one thing to say to that: ''Prove it.'' Prove to me that the circumstances have to be ''exactly'' the same. Prove to me that Neville was the only one capable of wielding the Sword of Gryffindor correctly. Because as it stands, your reasoning is seriously grasping at straws.
*** You're missing the point. It's simple: Yes, it IS possible for someone other than Neville to save the day. But by coincidence,
** I think you missed the point. Yes, a lot of things could happen, a zombie apocalypse could happen that ruined Voldemort plans. Or they could avoid Cedric’s death, Cedric does not turn into a Death Eater and on the contrary he became best friend of Neville and in one unwanted quiditch match he accidentally hits Neville's face affecting his eyesight and Neville fails
*** ….I give up. This debate has veered too far off the rails.
*** Somebody needs to write a fanfic about a zombie apocalypse interrupting the war with Voldemort.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
Correcting Red Link and spelling.
Changed line(s) 278 (click to see context) from:
*** I'd like to point out that while it's highly likely that [=McGonagall=] and Dumbledore could have let Harry in Hogsmeade without the form being signed (I mean, [=McGonagall=] let Harry be on the Quidditch team despite it actually breaking rules and protocol), maybe [=McGoangall=] was more worried about Harry wandering off away from the castle and running into a crazy mass-murdering maniac named Sirius Black (according to the wizarding community at the time) during that time of the year.
to:
*** I'd like to point out that while it's highly likely that [=McGonagall=] and Dumbledore could have let Harry in Hogsmeade without the form being signed (I mean, [=McGonagall=] let Harry be on the Quidditch team despite it actually breaking rules and protocol), maybe [=McGoangall=] [=McGonagall=] was more worried about Harry wandering off away from the castle and running into a crazy mass-murdering maniac named Sirius Black (according to the wizarding community at the time) during that time of the year.
Changed line(s) 283 (click to see context) from:
*** That's a lot of "ifs", if you ask me. Everything you've said is extraordinarily hypothetical, and the scenarios mentioned could be applied to a lot of things in our world and Harry Potter's - does that mean we shouldn't do them, if there's a small possibility something could go horribly wrong? I'm sure the staff wouldn't have given the Time-Turner over to her if they thought there was any concern over it malfunctioning, or any reason to suspect that another student might try to take it from her if they found out. (Plus, Hermione could always just defend herself if that happened, or even use the Time-Turner to evade them and go see [=McGonnagall=] in a time when it's safe.) And as for being injured by one of Hagrid's pets...Forgive me, but that sounds a little bit silly. Especially after what happened with Malfoy, I don't think Hagrid would let anyone near enough to any dangerous creature for them to be hurt by it, and it still hinges on Hermione somehow losing the Time-Turner during the attack, someone else managing to find it and ''not'' deeming it right to return it to her, being able to recognize what it is, and having a reason to try travelling back in time.
to:
*** That's a lot of "ifs", if you ask me. Everything you've said is extraordinarily hypothetical, and the scenarios mentioned could be applied to a lot of things in our world and Harry Potter's - does that mean we shouldn't do them, if there's a small possibility something could go horribly wrong? I'm sure the staff wouldn't have given the Time-Turner over to her if they thought there was any concern over it malfunctioning, or any reason to suspect that another student might try to take it from her if they found out. (Plus, Hermione could always just defend herself if that happened, or even use the Time-Turner to evade them and go see [=McGonnagall=] [=McGonagall=] in a time when it's safe.) And as for being injured by one of Hagrid's pets...Forgive me, but that sounds a little bit silly. Especially after what happened with Malfoy, I don't think Hagrid would let anyone near enough to any dangerous creature for them to be hurt by it, and it still hinges on Hermione somehow losing the Time-Turner during the attack, someone else managing to find it and ''not'' deeming it right to return it to her, being able to recognize what it is, and having a reason to try travelling back in time.
Changed line(s) 285 (click to see context) from:
*** For your first point, that's true, and I did fail to consider it - however, in a world where magic like the different kinds we've seen throughout these books exist, I'd be surprised if there wasn't, say, a spell that kept you from losing something or a spell that always keeps something on your person or around your neck or something. Secondly, I don't really see why you've brought up Crabbe and Goyle, considering they've been portrayed as DumbMuscle characters since Day 1. Even if Hermione were foolish enough (and I feel it's been established enough that she's not) to leave the Time-Turner visible on her neck where everyone can see it, I doubt they'd either get a good enough look at it to realize what it was, or consider the potential it could have in the right hands...which theirs are clearly not, anyway. (Plus, how many students at Hogwarts know what Time-Turners look like or what they do, anyway? I don't believe the books ever say.) And finally, again, you're basing your entire argument on the occurrence of one or two specific outcomes in the wake of an everyday incident that may or may not happen during the year. "Oh, Hermione, I'm afraid I simply can't run the risk of giving you this Time-Turner to help boost your school performance, because if you ''happen'' to get into some sort of accident, and in that accident you ''happen'' to lose it, and someone ''happens'' to come across it before you recover it like the diligent student I know you are, and they ''happen'' to know what it is, what it does, and how to work it, and they ''happen'' to have some desire to go into the past with it, and they ''happen'' to do so before you've come to see me about its disappearance..." There's just ''way'' too many unlikely variables there for [=McGonnagall=] to deem it too much of a risk, especially for her best, smartest, most competent and diligent student.
to:
*** For your first point, that's true, and I did fail to consider it - however, in a world where magic like the different kinds we've seen throughout these books exist, I'd be surprised if there wasn't, say, a spell that kept you from losing something or a spell that always keeps something on your person or around your neck or something. Secondly, I don't really see why you've brought up Crabbe and Goyle, considering they've been portrayed as DumbMuscle characters since Day 1. Even if Hermione were foolish enough (and I feel it's been established enough that she's not) to leave the Time-Turner visible on her neck where everyone can see it, I doubt they'd either get a good enough look at it to realize what it was, or consider the potential it could have in the right hands...which theirs are clearly not, anyway. (Plus, how many students at Hogwarts know what Time-Turners look like or what they do, anyway? I don't believe the books ever say.) And finally, again, you're basing your entire argument on the occurrence of one or two specific outcomes in the wake of an everyday incident that may or may not happen during the year. "Oh, Hermione, I'm afraid I simply can't run the risk of giving you this Time-Turner to help boost your school performance, because if you ''happen'' to get into some sort of accident, and in that accident you ''happen'' to lose it, and someone ''happens'' to come across it before you recover it like the diligent student I know you are, and they ''happen'' to know what it is, what it does, and how to work it, and they ''happen'' to have some desire to go into the past with it, and they ''happen'' to do so before you've come to see me about its disappearance..." There's just ''way'' too many unlikely variables there for [=McGonnagall=] [=McGonagall=] to deem it too much of a risk, especially for her best, smartest, most competent and diligent student.
Changed line(s) 344 (click to see context) from:
** Maybe Umbridge was the one who duelled him to the death instead of McGonagall. This troper got that from a dream he had last night.
to:
** Maybe Umbridge was the one who duelled him to the death instead of McGonagall.[=McGonagall=]. This troper got that from a dream he had last night.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
*** ''Crimes of Grindelwald'' also reveals that the Lestrange family has a separate branch that lives in France. Not all of its members have to have a connection to the Death Eaters, just like how a descendant of Salazar Slytherin could've gone to America and founded Ilvermorny.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
*** To start, you don't directly inherit someone's personality, only a propensity for certain behaviors, at most. Second, the child would be loyal to him if it were raised to be -- examples like Sirius tend to be the exception, not the rule. Delphi managed to grow up to be unfailingly loyal to Voldemort even without him and Bellatrix there to foster that loyalty, so it's doubtful they'd have much trouble trying to mold her into his most loyal follower.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** Maybe Umbridge was the one who duelled him to the death instead of McGonagall. This troper got that from a dream he had last night.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** A child would not necessarily be loyal to him. Children can turn against their parents, see Sirius Black for instance. If Voldemort's child inherited his personality - power-hungry, utterly selfish and sociopathic - then he or she would turn against him.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 79 (click to see context) from:
** And am I the only one picturing Voldemort chuckling sheepishly and saying [[StarTrekTheNextGenerationS7E11ThePegasus "I'm a role model."?]]
to:
** And am I the only one picturing Voldemort chuckling sheepishly and saying [[StarTrekTheNextGenerationS7E11ThePegasus [[Recap/StarTrekTheNextGenerationS7E11ThePegasus "I'm a role model."?]]
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** Also, the rumor itself and the fact that it got started aren’t inconceivable considering Tom ''did'' have a child with one of his followers; it just wasn’t with Draco’s wife and didn’t have anything to do with Time Turners. In that sense, it’s not at all like any 9/11 conspiracies because we know for a fact there ''was'' a secret child of Voldemort running free and that they were even trying to bring their father back into power.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** In addition, speaking as an American who remembers the horror around 9/11, I think the situation is completely different. The rumors would be more akin to the situation from Goblet of Fire where Little Hangleton fully belives that Frank the gardener murdered the Riddles, despite there being no proof other than 'he was taken for questioning.' For a real world example, say that a woman had returned to her home town heavily pregnant, and given birth roughly 8 or so months after Hitler died and the war in Germany ended. Her parents were Nazi party officials and she was known to have worked for Hitler as a maid. I don't view it as inconceivable that one person starts whispering that she was pregnant with Hitler's child and that it would spread like wildfire. The situation is even more likely given that it's probably now common knowledge that the Malfoys worked for Voldemort in the 1st War, escaped punishment, returned to him in the 2nd War, and by all accounts have now escaped punishment ''again''.
Added DiffLines:
*** I don't think Voldemort would have gained any good publicity for publicly announcing "I've had a child." People opposed to his rule would have seen it at the very least as an attempt to establish hereditary monarchy. Only his true followers would have been happy. The Order of the Phoenix wouldn't have stayed their hand at all if the opportunity had come to kill Voldemort, I don't even think Harry, who knew the pains of being an orphan, would have been fooled into showing mercy.
*** Also, about why Voldemort would want a child, just because he's incapable of love doesn't mean he's free of the need to breed. Real-life sociopaths have said that they at times want to have children for all sorts of reasons, either the desire to establish a lineage or to bind the other parent more closely to their control. Possibly he just wanted to get it on with Bellatrix and her falling pregnant was met with just the shrug of his shoulders and his idea of "good, a new servant I can train to be completely obedient."
*** Also, about why Voldemort would want a child, just because he's incapable of love doesn't mean he's free of the need to breed. Real-life sociopaths have said that they at times want to have children for all sorts of reasons, either the desire to establish a lineage or to bind the other parent more closely to their control. Possibly he just wanted to get it on with Bellatrix and her falling pregnant was met with just the shrug of his shoulders and his idea of "good, a new servant I can train to be completely obedient."
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** ''Deathly Hallows'' tells of how the boundaries of the charm can apparently fluctuate, depending on the circumstances -- it's mentioned that Harry and friends have to walk a certain distance away from Shell Cottage before they're out of range of the charm, whereas the charm over #12 Grimmauld Place lapses once you leave the front doorstep. Lily and James were probably protected by a charm that allowed them a bit more freedom than being confined to their house; it might've been over their street or even the entire village.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** A more likely ButterflyEffect might have been that Cedric somehow figured out that Snape wasn't the master of the Elder Wand, and told Voldemort this.
Added DiffLines:
** Maybe Snape was ousted for being insufficiently cruel as headmaster but was allowed to get his old job back to keep him from rebelling.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** I think we're all forgetting something here: Petunia is not Vernon's servant, nor is she a kowtowed and oppressed wife. We don't see Vernon and Petunia argue a whole lot, but the one time their opinions do clash (when Vernon wants to throw Harry out at the beginning of ''[[Literature/HarryPotterAndTheOrderofThePhoenix Order of the Phoenix]]''), Petunia wins. If she ''insisted'' on keeping the baby blanket, Vernon might grumble about it, but he wouldn't force her to get rid of it.
