Are the number of character deaths in HP realistic? In a wizarding war would more or less people die? Given the creative ways magic could be used to kill people (and for Muggle borns, combined with Muggle methods) what are the kinds of deaths that could be expected beyond the AK?

Basically, if you were killing off people in the HP series, who would you choose to "let go" and how would they die?

 

This is a flawed question brought on by shitty Fanfic.

Voldemort and his death eaters didnt want to kill everyone, they wanted to take over the wizarding world and rule it their way. Apart from Muggle Borns everyone else was safe if they didnt openly and actively rebel.

Look at all the main characters who were alive at the end of book 7 dispite being high profile supporters of Dumbledore. Minerva, Kingsly, Weaslys, most of the OOTP.

Voldemort out right said in the Battle of Hogwarts he didnt want anyone to die and ever drop of magical blood split was a waste.


So yeah, the number of deaths was realistic. Doesnt mean I dont wish Hermione had died though...

 

Do you mean an automatic rifle? Or are you referring to The Killing Curse? /shrug

What this question makes me wonder though is just how many muggleborns died during Voldemort's ~9 months of control, and how that effected the population numbers in the future as well as the political outlook?

MOD: move this to questions that don't deserve their own thread if you see it plox?

 

You also have to wonder that since the death eaters had a lot more free-rain over things in that year, you have to wonder how much rapey rapey happened to muggles who where either obliviated or not bothered and thus how many "Muggle born/Half Blood/Rape Babies" would appear in 11 years.

 

Well, she had to show some deaths to create the feeling for a pathetic excuse she called a WAR.

 

Why does everyone automatically assume Death Eaters are raping Muggles, whom they regard as so far beneath them as to be beasts? I never understood this thing in fanfic. In my mind, a blood purist Death Eater is about as likely to rape a muggle as he is to rape a house elf.

As far as the OP's question goes, things proceed more or less "realistically" as far as deaths go up until the Battle of Hogwarts. That particular conflict is what should have wiped out the most named characters, but Harry managed to figure out some ancient magic cheat codes and duplicate his mother's sacrifice, protecting everyone left at Hogwarts from Voldemort and, presumably, his followers.

 

There might have been a lot of unnamed characters who were kissed by Dementors or killed by Snatchers. Despite that, I don't think whatever happened in Deathly Hallows qualified as a war. Voldemort having a huge army of Dark Creatures and Death Eaters is fanon as far as I can remember.

 

It's canon at least in the movies.

 

Wasn't that army the whole reason Hagrid ran off to meet the giants? Voldemort had plenty of dark creatures on his side so the Order were trying to cut him off from doing it again.

 

All I remember are Giants, Dementors and Fenrir Greyback. Hagrid was sent to prevent Voldemort from getting to the Giants, not because Voldemort already had alliances with dark creatures iirc.

 

Voldemort used giants in the battle of Hogwarts and in the terror attacks at the start of HBP.

 

I think there were werewolves besides Fenrir mentioned. What really interested me were the snatchers. A whole force of magical mercenaries seemed to come out of the woodwork when Voldemort needed them to.

 

I remember Remus mentioning that he was infiltrating Greybacks's pack in HBP so there must be quite a few of them.

 

Rape, as a legal idea, probably doesn't even exist in relation to muggles or house-elves. Rape as we understand it in the modern time- as undesired, forced sexual encounters- has occurred for thousands of years against animals of all shapes and sizes by humans.

There is no good reason to say that wizards wouldn't rape muggles. That's like saying Bob One-tooth wouldn't rape his goat. It might be an animal to him, but it's still a mammal.

 

But Bob One doesn't come from a aristocratical setting, with heavy emphasis on the supirioty pf the one tooths against all living beings. It all depends what kind os vison of superiority did the Death Eaters had, a Nazi-like? As far as i remember rape of jews wasn't widespread or common at all, because the germans saw them as cockroaches. Or superiority like the Nobility in Middle Ages, where some noble raped because they simply could and felt like.

 

That doesn't hold up. Nearly every society from antiquity to the present includes taboos against bestiality. Sure, it happens, but it's almost never socially acceptable. It's a mark of the deviant and perverse.

 

Using humans and animals is a flawed analogy. For obvious reasons, I think white landowners and black slaves in the southern United States in the pre civil era is a more accurate comparison. While I've no doubt some Death Eaters wouldn't want to risk contaminating themselves or their bloodlines there'd be plenty that wouldn't care - just like it was back then with whites and blacks.

 

Well, if house elves were the exact same creatures as they are, but looked like say Tolkien elves, i can totally see teenage Death Eaters and single old toothless blood purists and people with weird fetishes and the like doing sexual stuff to them. Perhaps it would be considered distasteful and not be spoken of in front of ladies, but it wouldn't be a shunning offense, just you know follies of youth.

 

Uh what. What is this?

They're a terrifyingly small (child sized) non human subservient race. It's only in bad fanfic they're equated to typical fantasy Elves, where they're subjugated even though they're really more powerful than wizards anyways! Give me a fucking break, they may be kind, and not deserve shit treatment, but they're House Elves, they're slaves, they aren't some oppressed Master Race/Progenitors of Magic. If they were they would have revolted. They're alive, sentient, and have emotions, but they aren't as intelligent as humans, or as powerful.

So I don't see the point of saying "if they looked like Tolkein's elves" because they don't and if they did then raping them would still be just as reprehensible to the Purists/racists. They don't say "you can fuck a Giant but you can't talk to one" they say "Giants are worthless and should be killed or subjected to our will." That's the point of them, the idea that a Death Eater would have any sort of sex with an elf or muggleborn is like saying a skinhead secretly wants to have sex with an "inferior" race.

Though I suppose rape in the interest of demeaning someone/something is possible, I think it's extremely unlikely compared to beating or murder.

 

Wow. How in the world did you go from my "exactly as they are, with solely their looks being different" to "you are obviously implying they are a Master Race and should be ranted at"?
Never mind, that was a rhetorical question.

Ah, you could've just asked. The point is this: Mr. Merriman's comparison of muggle rape to house elf rape is flawed, because there is a vital and relevant difference, namely their appearance. (The same stands for your Giant's example, btw.) To support this point, I propose a thought experiment: remove the terrifying looks, in fact imagine house elves with the physiques of Greek gods while keeping their subservience and dim-wittedness and desire to please. I posit that in this hypothetical situation banging them would not be as taboo and disturbing as bestiality, but rather merely frowned upon as dalliances with peasant maids. Not something a married man does, but say Crabbe and Goyle junior? - yeah, I can see that happening.

Not to mention that if you set out to demean someone the fact that they are not in fact part of a slave-race becomes pertinent and just raises the probability of muggle rape further.