Voldemort, who is stated by Albus to have been the most brilliant Hogwarts student who might have known more about magic than he did, apparently thought conjured objects could block the Killing Curse. He summoned the silver aegis and was surprised when the curse that hit it wasn't the Killing Curse.

It doesn't matter if the object is conjured, if it's physical in nature and large enough to intercept the Curse, it is possible to do so.

But if conjured objects aren't enough, at least actual objects are, as Albus demonstrated using Eric's desk.

 

afrojack, I presume you had responded to me. There was no need, as that statement was pulled by Raine from places unknown and for equally unknown reasons. I followed it with question of that statement's purpose.

Nonetheless:
Perhaps Voldemort expected something lethal, but are you sure that he mistook different spell for his extremely distinctive favourite when even Harry would have been able to tell the difference instantly? That's hardly probable, especially when you consider that spell was cast by Albus Dumbledore, who'd rather eat his hat than use something that dull and dark to boot.

It is unknown if conjured objects are able to stop the unblockable Curse. It is possible, and I personally think that they can, but we don't have a definite proof. If simple conjuration could block the Killing Curse though, why would it been renowned as 'unblockable'? It could be parried by disarming spell and perhaps several others already.

The exact nature of Voldemort's shield is unknown. It was described as 'shining silver shield' and nothing more. For all we know it could be as physical as exactly same described corporeal Patronus. Ornate piece with snakes and meter-long wands were fruits of that artist's imagination and aren't grounded in book's reality.

 

Wasn't really responding to anyone, so much as adding my thoughts on the viability of conjured items as a defense.

As to how Voldemort could have mistaken Dumbledore's spell, I think it's possible when you consider the speed at which they might have been dueling. I was noticing from other posts at certain points in the thread, like when you were discussing the fight with Taure and he mentioned that Dumbledore only had time to banish the snake, and therefore could not block Voldemort's curse without Fawkes, you seem to discount the possibility that things are moving very, very fast. So fast that Albus might not have time to dodge a spell, or so fast that Voldemort might cast a shield to block a Curse without being absolutely sure he's preparing for the correct one.

There's also the idea that Voldemort's shield would have blocked pretty much any spell, so he thought, even if this isn't the AK, I should be okay.

As to why conjuration isn't cited as a defense against AK, I'd say that most of the magical laws/rules given are more statements of perceived possibility than objective possibility. Conjuration is probably extremely difficult, much less conjuration on the scale that would be required to successfully intercept the Killing Curse. Maybe they just don't know, or perhaps most wouldn't be anywhere near skilled/quick enough to summon something in front of themselves with the reflexes that would require.

Notice I don't say block. I say intercept. So the item has to be large/dense enough, which is probably very difficult to conjure.

Beyond that possibility, there's the idea that only some conjured objects would do. Like conjured silver. Which only men like Riddle might be able to conjure.

 

Cruciatus, AK and Imperius weren't unforgivable until 1717. From then on, it is illegal to use any of them on another human being. Human being. They didn't even include goblins, who manage their money. They only instance where using an unforgivable curse on another human being is justified is when you did it under the influence of the Imperius.

During the Ministry duel, Dumbledore animates a centaur statue which then blocks an AK that was headed for Harry. The AK cancelled the animation spell. This is book evidence that solid objects can intercept a Killing Curse. Now, I personally can't recall any instance where a conjured object blocks one, but I'll use the excuse you yourself gave me - I'll assume.

I'm assuming that if a solid object could block the AK, it is likely that a solid object that was conjured but is still a solid object could as well.

And before you cleverly state that you asked about conjured objects specifically, not actual solid ones, we don't actually know how the Fountain in the Atrium was created. Sure, it seems pretty stupid to think that statues were conjured or transfigured instead of just being made the old school way, but the point is that we don't know. Or we do, but I can't remember if I read it anywhere.

As for your big problem with magical creatures. You're assuming that those animals will just stand there, right in front of the wizard, and take the AK to the face.

Why do venomous snakes manage to kill people if it's possible to cut off their heads or shoot them if you're really good with a gun? Because they're fucking ninjas, that's why.

Nundus have poisonous breath that is said to wipe out entire villages. They can move silently and I'm pretty sure a nundu could chomp you up like a steak. It's not that hard to imagine that if the wizards can't see the fucking thing, they can't AK it. And while they're stumbling around, the cat will pick them off one by one or just breathe at them and be done with the annoying pests.

Chimaeras are equally if not more badass. Take a guess why only one was known to be killed by a wizard.

 

Or the damn things are just spell-resistant. It takes several stunning spells to actually stun a dragon, might work the same way for an AK.

 

Afrojack, thank you for your input, then.

I do not, they do move fast. Not as fast as you think, because they have time to chat with each other. Curses are not instant and Dumbledore supposed to be as quick if not faster than Voldemort. Else he'll die, as Tom Riddle is the most accomplished master of murder.
You just repeated my idea that Voldemort didn't know what Dumbledore spell was supposed to do, and for purpose of general usability conjured a shield was good enough for any curse, and that's why he used it in stead of anything else. But where did you get an idea that Voldemort thought that spell to be precisely the Killing Curse and not just something lethal?

Then that's just like dementor's argument, where it is stated that Patronus charm is the only possible spell that'll work against a dementor. I'm quite confused as to why one assumption supposed to be legit while others supposed to be not, but let us extinguish this matter as I had stated already that am of the very same opinion here and am not inspired enough to argue against it.

Riddle knows his curses, even if he cheapskates everything with Killing one. If someone could devise a law-breaking piece of magic in that direction, that would be him.

-----------------------

So use of it on everyone else is allowed? Thanks. I think that goblins are precise reason why Unforgivables weren't properly banned then, or the most prominent of.

So do I, and I would like to have some undeniable justification for the further use, that's why I asked.

Not mine big problem, I already have several ideas for some magical poaching. Wizarding big problem. Simultaneous fire at every possible movement direction should deal with any moving target.

Also they very, very small, silent, cautious and keep close to the ground. People in question are sick, careless or both. For every killed human there are hundreds of dead snakes, so snakes aren't unkillable. And ability of the known wizard killers was never questioned.

Unaware humans became initial casualties. Hunter party of hundred wizards is sent. Are there spells to locate a giant living beast? Even if not and Killing Curse is useless too, you can give your men brooms and carpets so they can enjoy a comfortable and safe monster-killing safari. Unlike dragons nundu aren't capable of killing airborne targets that know well enough to stay above range of poisonous breath.

Accidentally, the only wizard that ever killed Chimaera did so while flying on his winged horse, and died only because he apparently was a shitty rider with exhaustion(magical, it seems) from sitting on the flying horse (that did all the hard work, that is to say, flying) and lazily throwing curses at the poor defenceless chimaera below.

The question "Is it possible to successfully perform the Killing Curse on the beasts of the known wizard killer category?" stands still.

pidl, I'd like to think that, too. But Rowling likes her absolutes too damn much to assume.

 

Dude, I quit. Claim a victory, call me a coward, but I'm done. You're trying to apply logic to the magical world. "Why not fire at all possible vectors of attack simultaneously?" "Why not use brooms and stay out of nundu's kill-range?"

Of course if you apply principles of logic to many situations, logic will come out victorious. But you're forgetting some things:

1) Take a nundu hunt. Okay, use brooms. Do we go in wands ablaze? What if there are muggles in the area? Do we disillusion ourselves? But if so, won't we bump into each other if a hundred people fly around the same area? Nundu's a big cat--how high can it jump? Enough to knock someone off the broom? How's our aim? How high can we go for our spells to still hit the target? Can we spot the beast without the aid of special magic/omniculars/whatever?

2) We're told in book fucking one that wizards aren't the hottest when it comes to logic.

3) Suppose you get sent on a nundu hunt with hundred other people. A big enough group to assume that there will be people who'll be terrified and others who will act recklessly because big egos and shit. Scared or reckless people stand a higher chance of getting themselves stupidly killed.

4) You're treating the nundu as a big cat with a poisonous breath. They could be really smart, patient enough to wear the hunters out and play cat and mouse for days, not get backed into a corner. It's a magical beast. We don't know everything about them. There's apparently a reason why parties of 100 wizards failed to kill them.

All that said... there's a very famous fic that tried to deconstruct Potterverse with anal-retentive logic. It quickly derailed and can't find its own ass with both hands and a GPS ever since.

TLDR: magic, dude. Some of it we can't explain. Some of it we just have to accept.

 

Scott_Press, I had applied means(coordinated teamwork and flying) that were used by wizards dealing with beasts and are wide-known enough to be mentioned in their children's textbook.

Nundu is a silent giant cat with a poisonous breath that is capable of wiping entire villages. There is no evidence of it being intelligent like acromantula, sphinx or manticore, or even smarter than a common leopard for that matter. And if it was smart, that fact would've certainly been mentioned in the Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them. Subduing adult nundu is difficult because it is GIANT(as in, bigger than other monsters of the known wizard killer category) and able to produce equally giant poisonous breath.
There was something questionable in the Wonderbook about its domestication, and that it could be easily put to sleep by one measly wizard, but I don't own that book and cannot confirm it.

That's not the point, I only wished to know if Killing Curse doesn't do anything to the magical beasts, and if it does, why nobody uses it where it would be most suitable, efficient and sought after solution, undamaged body and all.

 

Possibly because not just any idiot can use the spell?

Riddle me this: why are you're assuming it's like Lumos, when canon tells us that the Ministry made a huge order for Fred and George's hats with the built-in Shield Charm because their employees (adults after Hogwarts) couldn't friggin cast it.

 

Scott_Press:
Would you send any idiot to dispose of giant man-eating spell-resistant monster? Would such idiot picks a career in slaying or taming monsters? Hagrid doesn't counts, as though he lacks magical education, he still knows his beasts well and tougher than half of them.

Any spell could be learned through diligent practice. Even Memory Charm by inept half-squibs like Lockhart and Patronus Charm by unredeemingly vile people like Umbridge. Why you're assuming otherwise? Ministry paper-pushers are just too lazy to practice spells that they consider useless for amount of time required to achieve acceptable results.

 

First of all, you're making a huge mistake by calling Lockhart an inept half-squib. This guy was damn good with Memory Charms and clever enough to set up his whole con. He was many things, but incompetent was not one of them.

And you're wrong by saying that any spell could be learned with enough effort. Not every wizard can cast every spell. Righteous anger won't fuel a Cruciatus. And it was stated by Rowling, IIRC, that Snape was the only Death Eater capable of casting the Patronus Charm.

 

I've only read the last page of this thread so forgive me if I'm repeating something that's already been said.


I'm fairly convinced that AK simply doesn't work on some of the more dangerous magical creatures. I assume so because Viktor Krum didn't use the curse during the first task of the Triwizard Tournament.

I suppose one could argue that it would make for bad press to do so. But then again, if I'm remembering cannon correctly, Dumstrang does have a reputation for being more accepting of Dark Arts.

Now, I'm assuming he would be capable of casting the curse. He did after all cast the cruciatus curse. Although, he did have some assistance with that via imperius.

 

First of all, you're supposed think things through before calling wrongs and mistakes.
Lockhart isn't an imbecile, but he isn't cleverest person at times either. Like most wizards are, actually. Do you think that his constant failures were deliberate and served some clever purpose?

About his inborn defects. He was, and arguably still is smarter than some characters, and yet he fails his spells far more often than they do. Was there at least one spell that he performed successfully in Harry's second year, previous obliviations aside? There is, perhaps, something wrong with his magic. And yet he was able trough a lot of work make his Memory Charms a thing to pride on.

There are conditions to be met to cast a spell. A concentration on a pure happy memory, a desire to cause the person's suffering or death. This is a mental part of an effort. Add perfected incantation and wand movement, add sufficient practice time, and you shall achieve ability to cast a spell desired.

Death Eaters are unable to cast Patronus only because they see no benefit in it and do no effort to have or recall a moment of said happiness. And it is implied through aforementioned Wonderbook that botched through the use of malicious thought Patronus Charm will summon a swarm of maggots to consume unfortunate caster, so Tom and his friends aren't inclined to try.

 

Sorry but being able to revel in the pain and suffering of other human beings is not a mental effort. You either can, or you can't. And unless something particularly traumatic happens, you probably won't change.

 

Hachi, you don't need to enjoy death, control or suffering to cast an Unforgivable. Snape certainly hadn't liked his turn in the least, nor Hermione for that matter. Harry probably enjoyed his latter attempts very much, though. His soul must be quite... peculiar.

You 'need to mean it', be focused not on the cause of your rage or rage itself, but on your want for the Curse effect to happen. Which is entirely trainable as long as your mind is whole and healthy. And why the hell would you use an Unforgivable if you don't want it to happen? For each Unforgivable there are spells and potions that can do similar things without being illegal or requiring intense focus.

 

It takes a hundred wizards to kill a Nundu because a wizard is a magical person, and a Nundu is a giant magical panther the size of a bus that has instant-death gas for a breath attack and is completely silent when it wants to be. It's literally a living weapon of mass destruction.

It doesn't matter if you think a SAS sniper could take one out with a big enough gun. We were flat-out told what kind of firepower you need to kill one, and we have approximately a blurb and a half's worth of information on exactly what a Nundu is capable of.

I am going to repeat myself for the fifth time in this thread, so fucking pay attention this time. An absence of information does not mean there is a hole in the canon. It means there are answers we were never given to questions that were never asked. You don't get to assume it's a plot-hole just to fuel your Devil's Advocate boner.

Archie, I'm sorry, but you're an idiot. You don't even understand what "plot hole" actually means, because if you did, you wouldn't be bringing half of this shit up. Please stop talking.

 

Which is exactly what I said a bit earlier. Why don't you read the post before answering to it?

'Subdue' was exact word, not kill, and reasons for that are obvious enough. An average wizard thief was able to raise a nundu in London and put it to sleep with a single charm, according to Wonderbook.

I said back then that the question I asked you wasn't a plothole, but a subject that knowledgeable fan like you was supposed to know and be able to clarify for me. I am not such fan, I've only read seven books (which are the only things that fit a strict canon definition), bestiary, bit of wiki and Taure's theory. None of that fanon you keep talking about, and almost nothing of expanded universe of games, interviews and Pottermore. Few pieces of fanfiction, but anything written in them is not relevant and therefore should not be thought about or mentioned here.
There were some brief assumptions in my posts, but they were made with use of common sense and were kept from contradicting solid facts of the books, and could be quelled instantly with appropriate action.

What purpose would serve calling each other names? Do so and don't be sorry if it relieves you of our stupidity. I do not bring shit up, nor do I call anything on four last pages of this thread an actual plot hole.
I do respond when a response is required, though, even if it was a pick on minor detail or questioning of the magical theory.

 

Why should anyone bother when you're being obtuse on purpose?

How do you know that thief was an average wizard? An as for Lockhart, of course he's a bumbling moron at times, like many wizards. When we first meet Fudge in CoS, we want to wring his guts out like a wet cloth because he's putting Hagrid in Azkaban. Then in PoA he's kind of nice - he doesn't go apeshit because of Marge Incident and lets it go, also because Sirius is free and he doesn't want to be too harsh on Harry. Then he turns into a moron again. Even Lucius Malfoy got his ass handed to him by a friggin house-elf.

We're not calling your bullshit for not knowing things. We're calling it becaue you seem like you do, but you come here and point out "plot holes" because something doesn't fit your dream-version of canon. You're a pain-in-the-ass canon-fixer who won't accept facts when they're handed to you on a silver platter.

The two funny things in the bolded fragment are that you're expecting DLP to hold your hand and pat you on the head instead of shoving a pike up your ass when you've deserved it and you're calling Raine stupid when it's obvious that's not the case.

 

Am not, and you would be able to understand this if you would read the posts instead of skimming above them, assuming their contents and picking on phrases outside of the context and general idea, and completely ignore said idea.

He wasn't particularly powerful, his success was entirely relied on then obscure unlocking spell that he acquired by accident. He was extremely careless as even with this trick he had been caught very often and was killed by his own guard monster; he wasn't smart as he had given away said spell as often as he got caught; he wasn't able in general as immediately after other wizards learned counter to his spell he hadn't been able to steal a single thing from any wizard.
But you as usual are picking on minor insignificant things while avoiding the message that matters: a single wizard had been able to raise a nundu, keep nundu from escaping on rampage or killing his neighbours, and lay it to sleep any time he wanted.

I'd answer, but his part doesn't carry any consistent point or illustrates a definite idea. And even if it did, how it relates to the statement that Killing Curse is learnable by monster-hunting wizards?

I do not point plot holes anymore, I do nothing but reply to your phrase-picking, attempts to start theoretical arguments and plain pointless gibberish like previous quotation for several consecutive pages.

Will do, I'm tired of this shit already.