To start with definitions.

Immortality: To live forever. (Dictionary: living forever; never dying or decaying)

Invulnerable: To be unable to get hurt. (Incapable of being wounded, or of receiving injury)

Now, wouldn't immortality mean you could get killed? I've always had this issue with HP. Wouldn't Voldemort strive for both immortality and invulnerability?

 

If you go by the vampire understanding of immortality, then probably. But my guess is that he went for immortality first because he didn't want to die before he figured out the invulnerability thing. Also, he's a dark lord and shit. Maybe he just used his dark magic superpowers to not be killed.

Also, strictly speaking, immortality means not dieing. So it really depends on what definition you go with.

 

He's too arrogant to think that something can hurt him. He only fears dying from reasons out of his control.

 

Harry Potter's immortal is something between invulnerable and your definition of immortal. After all, Voldemort couldn't die, he might get physicly hurt, but it wouldn't destroy him.

Now that i think of it he was invulnerable in a sense. His physical body could get hurt, but he was able to reproduce it anyway.

 

The never decaying part is not actually involved in pure "immortality". The standard definition is that you may not die of old age, of "mortality" so to say.

Voldemort was immortal in the sense that he could not die from old age, perhaps, due to his soul being anchored on blah blah seven planes with Ginny helping keep them clean and sparkling.

However, he was not invulnerable. In fact, in the world of HP, I would say it is impossible to make yourself invulnerable. To the fans of magical rituals, you may carve MMCCCCLIX runes into your body with a living silver knife, using the blood of a thousand veela virgins as ink. You may inhale the dark fumes of the end of the world, mix your blood with essence from the Olympian tombs. You may posses and devour the magical essence of all the magical species still existing.

You may do all that, and a simple killing curse will still send you for an early communion with your maker. Or the worms, underground, subject to beliefs.

Lord Voldemort could not make himself invulnerable. His magical skill could make him nearly invulnerable, but a killing curse would have worked its magic. Naturally, the Dark Lord had backups, and could roll back to a new horcrux. Until he ran out of his father's bones, but I am sure they are plenty. More than seven anyway, so still plenty to go.

Immortal, yes in the classical sense;

Invulnerable; no in any sense.

 

I disagree. His body was destroyed in Godric's Hallow and still he got reborn. If he was only immortal, he would simply die.

I personally think that killing curse from anyone wouldn't finish him of, because of Horcruxes; as long as he had these, he weren't able to die (both from age reasons and magical reasons, while standard definitions of immortality usually aplies only to age). You could say that he wasn't really indestructible because you could always destroy his horcruxes with him, but he won't be immortal in that case either.

 

His body was destroyed, thus not being invulnerable. In a sense, Voldemort had split his soul in seven. Thus, a seventh of him died, and he was able to recreate a body to hold another fragment of his soul. A Killing Curse would not erase the notion of Voldemort from the world, however, it would destroy Voldemort I. Then you would have to destroy Voldemort II, Voldemort III,..., Voldemort VII.

The theory does seem sketchy, as Voldemort's rebirth in GoF did not seem to fit in with the entire Horcrux theory. My opinion is that JKR did not plan Horcruxes, and merely did some poor backtracking to ensure it somehow fit with the new concept she had introduced.

To summarise, Voldemort I could not die of old age, but he could die of injury. The reason he seemed invulnerable was due to his extreme magical skill and power. None could oppose him on the battlefield and slay him, and so he seemed invulnerable. Due to a freak coincidence, or prophecy, young Harry had slain him, thus not making him invulnerable.

One could either destroy Voldemort by killing all the seven reincarnations, or by destroying the Horcruxes first.

 

I always thought (and it appears to be confirmed, intentionally or not in cannon), that Voldemort couldn't be destroyed, as long as he has Horcruxes. No fragment of ones soul would travel to afterlife if at least one other part is tied on earth, thus even person with one Horcrux cannot die, no matter how many times his body was destroyed, the soul would be still on earth, therefore he could just reproduce his body.

Idead of seven Horcruxes that Voldemort created appeared to be more powerfull - you could destroy one Horcrux, but finding seven of them would be quite impossible (except that voldemort was a total moron with their placement).

 

So you're saying that the soul fragment does not get used, its mere presence ensures Voldemort can come back. Hmm, you do have a point here, I had not considered this.

The seven was both due to magical theory, and presumably to make it more difficult to kill him. The hiding places were idiotic, as many of Voldemort's actions in canon.

Honestly, the way JKR portrayed Voldemort and the Death Eaters in the books, there was no way they would have been so feared in the First War. And no way he would have gotten so many followers. But I digress. If anyone more knowledgeable in the murky waters of canon wishes to clear the Horcrux matter out, I would be most grateful. Sadly, anything past the fifth book seems to have fled form my mind. I can't remember much of what happened in the Deathly Hallows, for example.

 

I don't remember any notice of using up Horcrux, after all it would be one less to find for Harry, and Dumbledore would surely mention it to him.

As to the Voldemort's terror, when public is faced with a villian who cannot possibly be captured by goverment, can kill anyone anywhere, it is a plausible explanation for panic. In fact, mostly feared people in history were mainly nuts; insanity and power didn't mix well.

 

The idea might have been twisted by fanfic writers but I do agree that the all idea of a Horcrux is to keep your soul to the 'mortal' plane, not to be used as a 'loading' point but some form of physical way to hold back the visit to Hades(there was a joke about this guy who played quake far too long and in the end thought he was immortal as long the save button exists... or something like it...)

So in other words, 'Tommy boy' is pretty much vulnerable, though his power makes him practically untouchable by any wizard with lesser powers than Dumbledore(in full front battle that is, though I entertain the idea that any paranoid Dark Lord would have taken precautions against poisoning or knife in the back act...) but he is immortal in sense that his soul would not take a one way ticket to the 'next great adventure' as long as there are shackles(Horcruxes) keeping him grounded to our mortal plane.

Once more, not sure if that is correct 'according to cannon' but then JKR had contradict herself on more than one occasions, so she might have just missed that one as well... Anyways that is the scenario that makes most sense, I think...

Now, where is Taure when he is needed?! O_0

 

Agreed, but it quite noticeably strays from our, and the topic creator, understanding of immortal.

He is a little "Clair Bennet" (from Heroes) invoulnerable for me, just his recovery takes a little longer when seriously damaged. That is until his Horcruxes got wiped.

 

Invulnerable: Unable to be injured or harmed. Dying from old age (or, typically, mystical interference) is still possible.

Immortal: One who does not age or ages but cannot die (permanently) from the effects. Can otherwise be killed either by the usual things, or by some special method/weapon.

TRUE Immortality: Immortal AND Invulnerable. Cannot die from old age and cannot be killed by any means. In other words, what most people think of as immortal.

------
A few examples...

Highlander: Immortal but certainly not invulnerable, can be killed by decapitation. They can even (legally) die, though as long as they aren't decapitated (or completely obliterated) they can heal and eventually revive.

Most Vampires: Immortal and very resilient, but not Invulnerable and can be killed through a number of means.

Most Gods: True Immortality.

Dorian Gray (Novel): Immortal. His portrait aged in his stead and he wouldn't age until it was destroyed, essentially making it a soul jar/phylactery/horcrux analog. Not having read the novel, I don't know that he couldn't be killed via injury, so that's still a possibility.

Dorian Gray (LXG): Immortal. His portrait aged in his stead, but looking upon its horrific appearance would undo the magic keeping him alive, thus killing him. Injuries done to him were inconsequential.

Superman, The Hulk, Rogue (after absorbing Ms. Marvel): Varying degrees of Near Invulnerability.

ABVH: In the Anita Blake/Vampire Hunter setting, a vampire's Human Servant (after taking the 'Fourth Mark') is immortal. As long as the vampire they serve is alive, the human servant has superhuman resilience, neither ages nor appears to, is basically immune to poisons and disease, but can still be killed by physical damage.

Incidentally, there are certain vampires in ABVH that, despite being immortal, have the ability to rot and decay at will. They are VERY hard to destroy.

 

I've always believed Immortality is when you regenerate from anything. IE Alucard, whereas Invulnerability would be a god. For all general purposes and intents they are unhurtable.

 

Regenerating from anything would be called Regeneration, I would think.

 

I think what Voldemort was going for would actually be best defined as indestructibility; He wanted to both have a long life, and be impossible to kill. He certainly wasn't invulnerable, as was proven on multiple occasions, and he wanted something more than mere immunity to aging.

 

I think that immortality is like Venger from Dungeons & Dragons (TV series), he could be killed (and he was killed lots of times), but he always came back.

And Invulnerability is like Superman, he couldn't be hurt but if he was killed it should be permanent.

 

In the traditional sense, immortality is living on without dying of natural causes. I suppose there would have to either be some kind of regeneration going on for that to truly work of course, since the body would decay otherwise, and if there is no soul that would mean the end of you from natural causes. Unless there is just a natural barrier to aging that a true immortal can not cross, much like Bram Stoker's vampire, though without the rest of the supernatural powers.

Invulnerability on the other hand, is being impervious to harmful external influences but still being susceptible to aging and eventual natural death. It can be said that immortality and invulnerability are two sides of the same coin, with one side dealing with internal problems while the other deals with external.

Examples would be...

Immortality: Dorian Gray
Invulnerability: Achilles

 

You have that backwards. That's more like a regenerative invulnerability. I don't know if he can age -which, if he can't, would be immortality- but if he can than he is just invulnerable.

Superman is neither. He is near invulnerable, but he can be killed via Kryptonite so he isn't truly invulnerable and he does age so he isn't immortal.

From my understanding:

Immortality: I.E. an Elf from Lord of the Rings. They live forever, but they can bleed and die like anyone else.

Invulnerability: They can grow older until they die, but they cannot die from other means.

Regenerative Invulnerability: Can regrow body parts after they are taken off, but cannot die from the wounds. Can die from old age.

True Immortality: Can die from neither age nor damage. Think of Zeus or the other Greek/Roman gods.

In the case of Voldemort, he is a True Immortal. He cannot truly die from any of his wounds, as his Horcruxes keep his soul chained to earth, and he seemingly would never age. Even if he did, if his body fell apart he could just create a new one.

 

Alucard can regenerate, but he shouldn't be able to die from old age, being a Vampire. So he has Immortality and Regenerative Invulnerability, right?