Umm. . . isn't the basilisk a magical creature created by a frog sitting on a chicken's egg? How does that make it a 'magical construct'? It's a living creature just like any other magical being. Who's to say that it was Myrtle's death that created the Diary horcrux? Isn't that impossible? Riddle didn't kill her so it wasn't his own cold blood murder. I'm almost positive that it was the death of his father and his new family, all killed by Tom's killing curse I might add, which created the diary.

I think it said in the fourth book that Tom killed his family right after school.

 

Rambling on alchemy and basilisks

A creature either mates or transmits its characteristics through its bite (werewolf). If you have something that is created without the help of one of its own species, that is no longer a magical creature, but a magical construct.

Think of it as in chemistry (or alchemy) that creates living beings. If I remember correctly, the creation of golems or 'homunculuses' was among the most desirable goals in alchemy. It was considered only one step short from creating other human beings, which could be considered the path to godhood. That was the ultimate goal of alchemy: GODHOOD.

What could you name someone who can live forever, create gold out of anything and create his own human servants, but a GOD?

Say an alchemist took the Bible as a reference into becoming a god. I know it sounds crazy, but that just might be. God did not first create Adam. He created the plants first, then the animals, and only then the man. This alchemist took it upon himself to follow that path.

Did you ever wonder what was with all those magical plants? It is the wizards that have forsaken common sense, not Magic, Evolution or God (take your pick). Take Devil's Snare or Whomping Willow for example. Plants are not that aggressive unless they protect them selfs or they feed of on corpses. Neither of those species does that. They were created with the sole purpose of defending the area on which they were planted against living (or moving) things. They weren't like that until man put his wand where it didn't belong. He fucked with nature while playing god.

The next step was the animal kingdom. Some magical creatures, like the manticores, the chimeras, the dragons, the unicorns and the phoenixes are like that because they are the magical representation of something - violence, chaos, the power, strength, resilience and violence of fire, innocence and the immortal flame in that order. They all breed. They are not created through man's manipulation. The basilisk is different. It is a construct. Muggles created pitbulls, wizards created basilisks. Pitbulls are bread, basilisks are created using frogs as incubators.

Imagine Neville: "Fuck Trevor, he's boring! I know!!! Let me get a basilisk as a pet! That way Malfoy and his goons wouldn't think of me as an almost squib. They'll think of me as the guy with a basilisk pet. I mean, if Hagrid does it, why not me too?!?"

If you follow the basilisk-gun reference I gave earlier that is possible.

Let me put it this way:
- you have a gun; you pull the trigger; you kill somebody.
- you have a wand; you say "Avada Kedavra"; you kill somebody.
- You have a basilisk; you say "Kill!" in parseltongue; you kill somebody.

As the basilisk is not a creature, but a construct, it will act as a tool, unable to resist in any way, shape or form the commands it was given. This is beyond the Imperius, it is unresistable. That's why, all three of the above could be considered cold blood murder.

The memory of Morfin Gaunt shows that Tom came to him, saw the decay of the Slytherin Family, took the ring and stunned Morfin. The Riddles were found murdered the next morning, and Morfin took the blame. This is why I say that the ring is the object that became a horcrux that night, not the diary.

The Diary was Myrtle's death, having the significance of being a sacrifice towards Salazar Slytherin and his chamber.
The Ring was Tom Riddle Sr, having the significance of being the death of Tom Riddle Jr and all his muggle family stood for and the rebirth of the True Heir of Slytherin, Lord Voldemort.

 

What about his death eaters then?

- you have a death eater; you say "Kill!" in english; you kill somebody.

I'm not sure that works. The death eater would be able to create an horcrux... not V.

Also, Salazar was the one to breed the basilisk so even if we use your theory... well the basilisk isn't V's.


And I'm not sure whether it really has to follow Voldemort's orders.

Snakes don't have to obey the orders imo.

Look at chapter 8.

 

boghi8462-Your logic is flawed in that, by ordering the basilisk to kill, you are killing. The fact is that it is the choice of the basilisk that causes the death; the basilisk makes the action which causes the death; Voldemort no more than suggested to it that Myrtle should be killed. Thus, no horcrux.

 

that the depends if you classify a basilisk as an animal or as a construct. If it is an animal with a will and independence then yes it is the basilisks action that causes the death.
But Basilisks can also be described as magical constructs, in that case it would be Tom's will which killed.

 

How is ordering an animal, even if it's a magical construct, to kill making it a personal murder of Tom's? If you sent a golum after a man at it killed him, you aren't flooded with any mystical energy which allows you to make a horcrux. You never killed, never took a direct action in the murder. Yes, you ordered it, but ordering a magical construct to murder would not effect your soul.

 

If we are to follow your logic in the same manner you followed ours, then if you pulled the trigger on a gun, that would not be considered murder either. It would be the bullet who would do the actual murder. If one was to cast Avada Kedavra, that would not be murder either. There would be no actual contact, so the real murderer would be the green light. By your logic, the only actions that could be considered as being real murders would be the act of strangulating a person or the act of ripping someone's heart out with one's bare hands.

I wanted to put this topic up for discution in the " General Discussion" thread, but got nauseas when I saw that thread is used for wishing Happy Birthdays and trading gossip. It was like this forum wasn't called "Dark Lord Potter Forum", but "Forum for the Ministry of Magic Friendly Birocratic Panel" or something of the like. Mind you, when the revulsion regarding what I saw eases a bit I may actually go around and do it.

So, in the mean time, let me put this so you could wrap your tinny little minds around the concept:

That goes even more so about soul magic.

IT'S ALL ABOUT SYMBOLS!!!

- The main ingredient in creating a Horcrux is the act of cold blooded murder.
- For us, the definition of the word murderer points to the last uncoerced being with a functioning soul.
- One of the main reasons no one till Voldemort thought to create more than one was because no one was mad enough to believe the after a Horcrux the soul would remain in a functioning condition to be able to create another one..
- An alchemicaly created magical construct HAS NO SOUL! (Those of you who wish to refuse that claim because of the homunculus in the Hell Boy comics series I urge to stop believing in fairy tales. As I haven't gotten around to read Frankenstein, I am not familiar with the aproach from that POV.)
- For the morons who haven't yet caught on what I'm talking when I refer to alchemicaly created magical constructs... <managing to resist in the last moment using some extremely colorful language by imagining long peaceful hours of torture> ... I suggest you read my past 2 or 3 posts or stop the act of proving to us your stupidity.
- The basilisk, hatched from a chicken egg incubated by a toad, having no element of his own kind in its birth process, is a magical construct.


If the basilisk has no soul than the act of murder can not be attributed to it, but to the parselmouth who is in control of it.

BOGHI, who if pissed of about the Fudge-like stubbornness and stupidity shown on the forum supposedly reserved for Dark Lords...​

PS: For those of you who wonder about the symbols comment, try to read the Sandman comics. In issue 30, there's this brilliant implication about how gods are born.

 

does that mean a chicken has no soul? Just because a frog's ass kept it warm shouldn't make it not have a soul. I think that if an animal is "born" regardless of the events leading up to the birth then it would have a soul.

just my thoughts on this

 

Boghi, forgive me for being direct about this... but you're comparing two very dissimilar things.

A gun, a wand, a dagger, a car... all these things have one thing in common, they are tools that are, by themselves... inert. Thus they cannot, on their own, carry out an act or choose not to do an act.

An animal .... even a magical animal such as a basilisk (since that's what's being discussed) has self awareness. Maybe they aren't sentient... then again my cat is pretty damn smart and seems to know what he wants...but they have some form of self determination.

Thus comparing the act of killing someone with a tool like a wand or a knife is not the same as comparing it with a killing using an animal that has the faculties of self determination and free will.

You really can't compare animate beings and inanimate objects... they simply are not the same thing.

 

Look, buddy, Tom ordered the basilisk to attack Harry in the Chamber of Secrets. He told it to smell him, to sniff it out. It's still a snake, still has a soul, it's just magical. It sheds and does everything else a snake does. I don't get where this 'construct' thing came from. Anyways, how the hell does a frog hatching a chicken's egg have shit for shit to do with alchemy?

 

Does a Patronus have a soul too? You can give it orders and it behaves in an animal-like fashion while it lasts. The what about transfigured animals? Y'know, the ones McGonagall creates out of inanimate objects. Do they have souls?

 

There exist two factors in this discussion that are not even being considered.

First, is the fact that magical construct or not, a Basilisk is still in posession of a soul. If it were not, that would require that either the chicken egg, not incubated by a toad, would hatch a soulless chicken, or that the process of breeding a Basilisk destroys the egg's original soul.

Secondly, it is entirely possible that, in creating a Horcrux, the definition of 'murder' that applies is more akin to Asimov's 1st Law of Robotics, allowing for cases such as "through inaction, intentionally allowing death to occur."

 

Well, personally I think all the main consideration is just that the actual "ACTION" of the murder has to be on the part of the person doing the killing.

Maybe, using another creature to do the killing for you just isn't "personal" enough to split the soul the way its needed.

 

Have you made an introduction yet? If not, go do that before anything else.

 

What does a patronus or a transfigured animal have to do with a Basilisk? Both are created by the caster's magic, completely different from a basilisk who is born, lives, and dies just like any other snake. The only difference is in the way it was born and then we have magic as a reason. Your argument is weak.

 

If I remember correctly, the basilisk is in Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them. I could be wrong, but I think that would make it an animal-a magic animal, if you will.

 

This might be sad, but I've got the book myself and its in there. So, anyone who thinks a basilisk is some magical construct, find another of the animals in there that seem to fit the criteria of a construct and show it to me.

 

The legal definition alone rules out any possibility of the term murder applying to a Basilisk, construct or not.

Murder can only be committed by a human, as well as only applying to humans (however cruel and entertaining it may be, killing a kitten is not murder). Since in legal cases, those who order the killing of another are also charged with said murder(s), the Basilisk's master is also held accountable for the act of murder so long as he/she ordered it.

As for the snake being a construct of some sort, ie. Golem's, Elementals, Inferni, Patroni, etc.

The Basilisk, AKA the King of Serpents, is described as:

COS, 16

Being born from an egg, regardless of the magical side, automatically categorizes it as an animal rather than some magical construct like an earth elemental, golem, or patronus. As all three of these have a natural mental connection with their master/summoner in order for them to be controlled and serve a purpose.

As for the killings the Basilisk committed under guidance of Tom, and through his connection to Ginny Weasley, I personally believe that it would have been impossible for Tom to use the Basilisk to create a Horcrux. The HP Lexicon further backs my opinion through its section entitled "Horcruxes"

While yes I did just state that Tom commanding the Basilisk would be legally considered murder, I highly doubt that:

A) Tom took the time to have a Basilisk kill somebody for him to create a highly personal object when he most likely would have done it himself. "If you want something done right, do it yourself" Tom is far to cautious to entrust a delicate matter like that to a simple creature.

B) That a Basilisk killing for him would be personal enough in the first place to rip his soul and create a Horcrux.

So, lets wrap things up shall we.

Basilisk = Not a construct
Basilisk killing folks = Not murder, Nor good enough for a Horcrux

So in conclusion. You're totally fucking wrong.


- Napoleon Jones



PS: Good to be back.

 

This is all getting pretty hypothetical, but if we assume the horcrux rules map on to the rules for murder, we have two possible analogous scenarios for the basilisk kill:

Scenario 1: Pit bull owner orders his dog to attack and kill victim.

Scenario 2: Gang leader orders underling to attack and kill victim.

In scenario 1, the owner is guilty of murder. The dog isn't guilty of murder because it's just a dog (but will probably be put down because it is just a dog), and the law treats the order as the act that caused the death.

In scenario 2, the underling is guilty of murder, and the gang boss is guilty as an accomplice. He's subject to the same level of punishment, but he hasn't committed murder; the law treats human actions as breaking the causal chain, so the order wasn't the immediate cause of death.

Basilisks don't seem that bright, so I'd be inclined to map it onto scenario 1, but I see how you could go either way. In any event, I'm sure jbern will come up with a surprising and satisfying way to deal with the horcrux situation in his forthcoming sequel.

 

Well, me, I'm going with "Ordering a Basilisk to do your dirty work for you" isn't a good enough quality of kill to be used in creating a horcrux anyway line of thought. Anyone that disagrees is free to be wrong all they want.

Back on topic though, Bungle has been a real treat as far as HP stories go. at least for me. And honestly, that's saying a lot considering it contains one thing I absolutely dislike intensely in most HP fics; Animagamus training.

I really generally dislike stories where Harry does the whole Animage thing in the space of a few short chapters. I mean, come on, his father and friends took months and months of group effort to pull it off. Also, just once I'd like an author to have him test for it and come up empty.