A quote from DH Chapter 35:

There are two items of interest here.

The first is that Dumbledore has a specific belief that he should not kill with the Elder Wand. It has always been curious to me that the Order is willing to kill (per Lupin) but that Dumbledore himself doesn't seem willing to. And this seems to be the reason why - he is specifically wary of using the Elder Wand to kill (implying that before Elder Wand, he did kill).

The second is the statement that the cloak would not work for Dumbledore as it works for Harry. Which seems to imply that the cloak has different "levels" of concealment, and Harry is able to unlock its full potential, whereas Dumbledore could not.

Thoughts?

 

I find it interesting that Harry is apparently able to use the cloak to its fullest form and Dumbledore and Moody's Eye can still defeat it.

 

I like the theory that Dumbledore enchanted Moody's eye with the Elder Wand, thus enabling it to see through the cloak. Or maybe the cloak properly hides you from death, and invisibility is just a side-effect.

I'm not sure how much of Dumbledore's unwillingness to kill stems from his "fear" of the wand and how much is a) simply not needing to, because he can subdue enemies securely without killing them and b) just plain valuing human life and not wanting to kill someone.

 

I think while Harry's cloak is an exceptional and perhaps pinnacle of invisibility cloaks in the end it is just an invisibility cloak. So Moody's eye beat its magic.

 

There's a lot of layers of stuff to untangle in that short passage.

First, there's the level of what is happening, and who is speaking. Here, I think there's a few options:

1. It's Dumbledore giving us his thoughts (which may be coloured by his own experiences).
2. It's Dumbledore giving us word of god.
3. It's Harry coming to a realisation as to the 'meaning' of the Hallows, and 'Dumbledore' is a representation of that realisation.
4. It's literally Death explaining shit to Harry.

I'm not sure if JK has made an authoritative statement on which of these is the truth of the King's Cross scene. I've ordered them by likelihood as I see it (with 4. a long way down, but included because it's such a popular fan interpretation).

I'm also willing to drop 3., as it can probably be argued against by saying that Dumbledore seems to know factual things Harry shouldn't know (though there's not actually any confirmation in text that what KingsCross!Albus is objectively correct regarding past events, we only have what Harry knows going into the meeting. No third-party confirmation)/

Between 1. and 2., however, it's a toss-up. Dumbledore is probably right (making 1. and 2. have roughly the same result), but one area where Dumbledore is perhaps less reliable is when he is considering himself. Ask Dumbledore a question about magic, and I'll accept his answer as gospel any day of the week; ask him whether he is a good man, and I'd be much more likely to question his conclusions.

This is important because it feeds into Dumbledore's own specific areas of self-doubt; specifically the distrust he has of himself when it comes to the pursuit of power. I think Dumbledore's resolution to avoid killing wherever possible is more down to himself than anything specific to the wand. In combination with this is the fact that Dumbledore simply never needs to kill. He is so far beyond most of those people he comes up against that it is as easy for him to subdue them as it is to kill them, and thus killing for him is always a choice, and never a necessity. I think it is his own fear of himself that ensures he never makes that choice; for as soon as he decides to kill, he starts back down the path he trod as a younger man.

I am unsure of how to interpret the possibility of different 'power levels' for the cloak. I can see it for the stone, as it seems that people brought back for selfish reasons suffer (or perhaps it is because they are forced to remain), while when Harry uses the stone to give himself courage to do what is necessary, there is no evidence of pain or suffering in those whom he brought back.

Perhaps that provides the answer to the question of the cloak, too. Basically, Dumbledore and Crouch/Moody are able to see Harry through the Cloak not because of something special in them, but because of Harry's own intent when using it. When he is seen by them both he is not acting upon some 'higher purpose', he is not being selfless and self-sacrificing. The true power of the Cloak might perhaps be like the Stone, and work best when it is being used selflessly. In the Tale of the Three Brothers Ignotus uses the cloak only so that he might meet Death at the right time, he does not grasp jealously for more time, or try to use it to extend his life unduly.

It's all a bit hand-wavey, but there we go.

 

I've always seen Dumbledore's "unwillingness" to kill as him not needing too. Mercy is the act of the strong after all. And other than Voldemort no one can truly contest him, for Dumbledore to be lethal he would in essence be committing murder.

Personally I've always read this passage less literally. Dumbledore is literally praising Harry's character through the lens of the Hallows. Dumbledore can't use the wand to kill because Dumbledore doesn't trust himself with that power. Dumbledore would use the stone selfishly, etc. Where as Harry has both a good heart and the conviction to act on his morals.

I'm perfectly willing to accept cool Master of Death powers in fics though.

 

I have a theory on the Elder Wand's power. We know that wands learn from their wizards just as wizards learn from their wands. Given the importance of connection between wand and wizard, it stands to reason that the above learning happens to the greatest degree with the best connected wands. The wand of a great wizard is going to be mighty indeed by the time that wizard's life draws to a close - a lifetime of living a magical life.

One of the interesting facts about the Elder Wand is that it's the ultimate mercenary. It gives its total devotion to whoever wins it - a deep connection. This wand has existed for a thousand years. It has passed from hand to hand, learning from and teaching some of the most dangerous and powerful wizards in the world. Is it any surprise it is so mighty after so much time? This interestingly would imply the Elder Wand didn't start out as strong as it is today - but rather grew in place with its legend. I actually quite like that.

So why aren't there other super wands? That leads us to the other key feature of the Elder Wand. It is a mercenary but a fickle one. It is completely loyal up until the moment you are defeated, whereupon it gives its complete loyalty to its new master.

A normal wand, after a lifetime of use, will be full of bad habits and person eccentricities. These may clash with it's new wielder. The Elder Wand bypasses that, by giving itself totally to its new master and those who seek the Death Stick are likely to already be aligned to its nature. Also, the loyalty of a normal wand to it's old master means it may actively resist a new owner. Again, the Elder Wand bypasses that.

But all of that may not be enough on its own. For the final piece of the puzzle we must look at wand 'wilting', where particularly loyal wands magically die with their masters. All that learned magic passes through the veil with its master, leaving the wand dead. The Elder Wand's fickle nature means it has never wilted, but always passed from one master to the next.

This last, importantly, explains a lot of Harry and Dumbledore's behaviour with the wand. Should someone die undefeated, a wand as 'loyal' as the Elder Wand will surely die with its master - it's power finally broken.

I wonder if this links in with your quote "not to boast of it, and not to kill with it. I was permitted to tame and to use it, because I took it, not for gain, but to save others from it."

Dumbledore dare not use the wand openly, for fear others will come to claim it. He dare not kill with it for the wand is the Death Stick. A thousand years of magical lessons rest in the wand. If Dumbledore used it to kill, he would make the wand an even deadlier weapon to its next wielder and the wand's lessons would surely change him in turn.

 

In accordance to World's post, I think having the cloak true power being in providing its owner with some sort of subtle protection fitting. It could explain Harry's luck at dodging death, you could even have it be the reason for how James Potter managed to thrice defy Voldemort and live. Well, until he had a child and the ownership passed on. The cloak always felt a bit to underwhelming in comparison to its older siblings, so I'm open to buffing it. Although I'm not sure if having what is essentially in universe Plot Armor ideal for storytelling, even if it fits really well with the lore.

 

Actually, I don't see the stone working all that differently for Harry - it's purpose is to tempt people into dying, as it did with Cadmus. If you want to "be with" your dead relatives/loved ones, the only way to do that is to die yourself. The stone gives you a glimpse of what you could have again, if only you killed yourself. If you could call back your loved ones without any negative side effects, you'd just do that and keep on living. So usually the stone does what it needs to tempt you into suicide.
With Harry, there wasn't much it had to do. His family telling him that it's "just like going to sleep" was just a further push to get Harry to accept his own death.

 

The thing that occurs to me on re-read of this passage (the first time I have read it in a long time, and definitely the first time since my views on magical theory evolved beyond "it's all just skill") is this:

Yes, being "Master of Death" is nothing more than being a person who accepts the inevitability of death and makes their peace with it - an almost Jedi-like detachment. It is not a magical position that comes with special powers, it simply describes a person who has a certain perspective on death.

HOWEVER, I think the lack of specialness has been overstated. This is because a person's character is not magically irrelevant. In fact a person's magic is more or less an expression of that person's character/nature. Therefore being the master of death is highly relevant, magically speaking, even though it is not some kind of special magical position. It is relevant via the medium of the individual's character.

Therefore we can say that both:

1. Harry is master of death simply because he accepts death, and there's nothing more to it that this; AND

2. Harry being master of death has great magical significance.

That magical significance comes in a few forms:

A. The Hallows react to him differently to a normal person. He is able to unlock their full potential because of his character, whereas a person with a different character like Dumbledore is only able to use them in a limited way.

B. Harry's magical will is greater than Voldemort's; Voldemort is an individual who lives in fear, whereas Harry is fearless before death.

 

He's not fearless. He's brave.

 

A point that is relevant to Dumbledore's willingness to kill, is that in Snape's memories when he ran to Dumbledore that first time the first thing he said was "Don't kill me". To me that suggests that Dumbledore had a reputation for killing Death Eaters, if its the first thing Snape said.

 

It is a bit strange that Dumbledore should consider himself so ‘inadequate’ in this sense considering that in many ways he shows the same strength of character that Harry does when it comes to facing death.

We can’t really say Dumbledore didn’t possess the same attitude towards death that Harry showed because in the end Dumbledore committed the same self-sacrifice.

Indeed, there’s a taste of something braver in his actions. Consider that he just as willingly walked to his death despite being greatly (mentally) weakened by the after-effects of the potion of despair. And unlike Harry, Dumbledore didn’t have the advantage of knowing that most of the horcruxes had been eliminated, that his compatriots were presently engaged in the destruction of those that remained, and that by his death he was removing one last stepping stone to Voldemort’s immortality.

It takes I think a great deal of courage to willingly face ones death knowing that one of your greatest fears (Voldemort’s takeover of Britain) will soon be realized and that there is nothing you can do to stop it.

Except for the prophecy (which of course isn’t actually a guarantee of Harry’s success), there really isn’t any reason to think/hope that all of the horcruxes will be eliminated in Harry’s lifetime, and I think Dumbledore may very well have thought that he had consigned the trio to their doom despite all his preparations.

There may well have been an expectation in his mind that the destruction of Voldemort could have ended up being a multi-generational quest.

So I think it takes a great/er deal of moral fortitude to willingly step into that unknown territory, as compared to Harry’s actions which were comparatively more ‘obvious’ (because of the scar-horcrux).

On the flip side, I don’t really buy the argument that Dumbledore’s actions were less brave because he had a reduced mortality from his cursed hand for example. This is because I don’t really think of bravery as being consequential, but rather as being related to one’s internal mindset.

Dumbledore’s cursed hand certainly reduced his options and made his choice less consequential (I.e. he was dying anyway and so his his early death wasn’t as much of a loss), but that is irrespective of his bravery which is a matter of attitude. I.e. if you don’t have the attitude of acceptance towards death; the foreknowledge of your erstwhile demise is certainly not going to help you to accept your fate.

On the contrary it could be argued that Harry’s death being more consequential, resulting in the elimination of the scar-horcrux and the protection of his friends and colleagues (granted that he did not know this) made it easier somewhat to accept his fate.

In any case, both men were extraordinarily brave, so it doesn’t make much sense to say that Dumbledore didn’t make the cut on that account (that he didn’t ‘accept’ death).

So acceptance of death seems to be a necessary but not sufficient condition of character to explain the mastery of the Hallows. What’s missing I think, are the initial conditions in which Dumbledore acquired the Hallows; as he himself explains he did not have the purest of motivations when he took them into his positions.

So for the actual conditions necessary to acquire mastery of death; I can think of two possibilities:

1. Mastery of death depends on the initial conditions of character present upon acquisition of the hallows

2. Mastery of death depends on the owner possessing a lifetime of character consistent with certain moral virtues pertaining to one’s acceptance of death

I think 2 makes more sense, so even though Dumbledore possesses a character worthy of the hallows in his later life, he is still handicapped by his past follies. Whereas, Harry being younger never had a lifetime to potentially make moral mistakes, but presumably if/when he does he will lose some authority over the hallows.

Magical Will:

I am a bit skeptical that mastery over the Hallows translates to having a greater degree of “magical will”, or that this means Voldemort comparatively lacks magical will.

Firstly, Voldemort fears death yes, but so does Harry and perhaps (though I am unsure of this) Dumbledore. We know Harry was certainly scared when he went to face down Voldemort (e.g. pounding heart). Of course that’s precisely what makes him so brave; it’s not really bravery if you’re not scared.

Secondly, Voldemort faces down his fear resolutely and courageously. Despite his thinking that death is the worst thing ever he often willingly places himself in hazardous situations to see his goals through.

We see Harry admire this aspect of Voldemort‘s (his fearlessness) personality in the memory of Gaunt’s shack. He also displays a great deal of perseverance that seems almost superhuman at times; such as his refusal to fall into despair in his ten year existence as a wandering spirit, despite having lost everything really except his life, and with the expectation that his followers had all abandoned him.

What we are left with then is simple self-sacrifice, and it’s unclear to me why this should be the unique condition so essential to ‘magical will’. It seems just as possible that magical artifacts like the hallows carry with them a sort of personality, and that self-sacrifice was a trait particularly prized by the hallows (no wonder).

But this doesn’t mean that there might not be other magical artifacts that exemplify different criteria for selection. Just as the Patronus charm on the one hand requires one to possess a mental state of happiness/contentment while the Cruciatus curse on the other hand necessitates the user hold a mental state of willful/sadistic infliction of pain, it is possible that the trait of self-sacrifice is peculiar to the hallows.

For all we know there exists an artifact that requires the user to show moral cowardice in order to function properly. So I would be cautious in extrapolating that criteria for the possession of the Hallows to be indicative of anything that approximates a magical will.

 

I think that those items work kinda like wands. (They choose the wizard, not the other way around) There is a Hogsmeade scene in the 7th book where some random death eater tried to summon his cloak, and Harry hardened his grip on the cloak as if he feared the spell would work, but nothing happened. Now I don't remember anyone saying that those cloaks are immune to that kind of magic, but I like to believe that cloak simply refused to bow to other wizards just like the wands don't work properly for wizards who are not their owners (or masters).

How Dumbledore talks about the wand, it's almost like magic is some kind of deity. It surely does have a mind of its own sometimes and works in extraordinary ways and this is probably one of those times. Dumbledore maybe decided not to kill with it because the history of the wand was bloody, and in order to stop its bloody trail he did the opposite. He held it in secret, did good with it, and probably hoped its powers would die with him because no new master would claim it. A whole Dumbledore--->Draco---> Harry scenario (masters of the wand) was not Dumbledore's plan.

Just some thoughts.

 

I wouldn't ascribe an intelligence or intent to Magic as a deity. We have evidence that different magical objects have different personalities, so Albus' understanding of the Hallows is based mostly on his encounters with them.

The elder wand is really a slut for powerful wizards, and I'm sure it influences the holders greatly, depending on their strength of will. By the time Draco 'defeated' Albus, the deathstick was probably so frustrated with Peacey McWrinkles that it was looking for any excuse to jump owners. Seems like it has specific conditions under which it can change, but knowing that Harry had defeated limp-spined Draco (and that Voldemort hadn't defeated Draco in such a way as to feel the change in ownership) was probably good enough for it. The whole works would have been toppled if Voldemort had demanded Draco's wand instead of his father's at that board room meeting.

Also, weird thing, but it seems like each hallow has decided on a different process for authoritative hand-off. The wand must be taken, the cloak must be given, and the stone must be discovered -- as if its default state is either 'hidden' or 'missing'.

 

It may be that it only provides the fullest effect when your life is in danger, as in it makes you truly invisible to those that are trying (at that moment given Crouch Jnr) to kill you.

 

@Taure I don't know that we need to read Dumbledore's statement as meaning that there are different 'levels' of effectiveness for the cloak. Dumbledore is talking about moral character throughout the scene. You could potentially read this as Dumbledore stating that he would have possessed the cloak for his own pride and vanity and not from any true need to conceal himself from death. Unlike Harry and the original owner who possessed the cloak for the use of it.

 

Dumbledore talks about his vanity and self-interest yes, but he also draws a causal connection between these traits of character and the effectiveness of the hallows.

He uses phrases like “it would not have worked for me as well as for you” and “I was not permitted”; which express a lack of agency. Dumbledore isn’t saying that he chose to not kill or to not fully use the potential of the cloak; he is clearly saying that he was barred from doing so.

Otherwise Dumbledore would say “I would/could not use it because of x (his character)”. It’s clear here that the actual reason he cannot use the hallows to their full potential is because they simply wouldn’t allow him to.

Any other interpretation seems to me a bit of a stretch; especially as we know from independent lines of evidence that the elder wand’s effectiveness is capable of changing from person to person.

So the most reasonable interpretation is that Dumbledore is claiming that all the hallows (not just the elder wand) vary in their effectiveness from person to person. And that the potential of the hallows are dependent on the user holding (and acting on) a certain moral disposition, specifically acceptance of death.