= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
DanArmak comments on Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, February 2015, chapter 108 - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
Comments (352)
(1). What did you think about my argument here? That Quirrel couldn't think of a plan that started by teaching his most powerful and secret magic to a minion.
(3). Maybe the backlash is proportional to the strength of one's magic, so in Azkaban Quirrel was affected a lot more than Harry, and baby Harry wasn't affected at all. That matches the fact that Quirrel's new strategy for surviving such moments is to stop using magic, throw away his wand and abandon the very shape of a wizard.
(5). If he tortured or threatened Snape, he couldn't trust anything Snape might say. A perfect Occlumens is perfectly prepared to assume a false identity that will confess false information.
(6). Back then, Quirrel wanted to strengthen Harry politically and eventually help him rule Britain. If he killed Lucius, Draco would blame Dumbledore, be very angry and afraid, and probably leave Hogwarts. If he caused Lucius to be disgraced, he might succeed in making Draco believe that Lucius had indeed killed Hermione, and then Draco would come back to Hogwarts and become even closer friends with Harry.
Baby Harry did at least get a scar.
Hmm, good point. We don't actually know what he got the scar from - the Horcrux ritual, the magical interaction with Voldemort, or just randomly during the explosion and the fire.
1) I'm not sure. Also, Riddle always wanted to be a teacher, so it seems like he should be able to imagine plans that involve teaching X to Y.
5) A well-chosen threat can make Snape want to tell the truth. "Help me get the Stone! If I fail today, I will return and do horrible thing X." Just mentioning the hostage situation might be enough.
6) If you want to remove Lucius, why set up a new crime for him to commit? He's already committed any number of crimes while working for you as a Death Eater, so you have all the proof you need. And if you want to turn Draco against him as well, the obvious solution is to provide "ironclad evidence" that he burned Narcissa.
5) Snape isn't a Parselmouth, so Voldemort can't precommit to him not to do the horrible things if Snape does help.
6) Judging Lucius for being a Death Eater, on no new evidence, would require a major political shakeup. Dumbledore's faction already failed to do this after the war, so why would they succeed now? And it would probably require judging all other prominent Death Eaters too, like Jugson. Voldemort might not want to remove all of his previous identity's servants off the board.
What possible motive could Lucius have had to burn Narcissa? Not to accuse Dumbledore - they were at war at that point, and nobody really cared. And later he couldn't convince anyone of it. And, I get the impression he's taken some political hits (or missed opportunities) due to his insistence that Dumbledore burned her.
5) Riddle can't use Parseltongue to prove stuff, that only works between wizards of roughly equal power. If you're much weaker than Riddle, you never know if you've been False-Memory-Charmed to hear Riddle say something in Parseltongue. (Even Harry can be charmed this way, Riddle just needs to ask a minion to do that.) In any case, there's no need for Parseltongue. We know that Voldemort has threatened Death Eaters in the past, and presumably kept his word. Snape is a former Death Eater, so he would believe Riddle now.
6) The obvious way to single out Lucius is to provide proof that he wasn't Imperiused to become a Death Eater. Since Riddle is the one who didn't Imperius him in the first place, such proof shouldn't be too hard to find.
On the other hand, if you choose to frame Lucius for burning Narcissa, the obvious motive is infidelity, or betraying Death Eaters to Dumbledore (as she did in canon at some point), or any number of other reasons why people kill their spouses. And if you imagine yourself as Lucius, then accusing Dumbledore afterwards is also an obvious move, because you don't want to admit to Draco that you've killed his mother, you know that Dumbledore had a clear motive (see the bit about Aberforth in Ch. 82), and no one else would be crazy enough to attack your family.
HPMOR has just too many plot devices! I can probably justify anything at this point. Maybe I should write an alternate explanation of everything that happened before the Truth arc, because Eliezer's explanation doesn't feel very satisfying to me, to be honest.
But the claim that Voldemort will return immediately if killed, even if killed tens of times, and can even leave his body at will without dying and possess someone else, is very novel and Snape would have no particular reason to believe it.
Snape would reason correctly that if Voldemort wins, he would punish Snape anyway, for his betrayal during Voldemort's absence. So Snape would try to help Dumbledore and not Voldemort as long as he has a hope of success.
This isn't clear to me. Maybe Voldemort can find proof just because he's powerful and good at proof-finding. But it wouldn't be because he didn't Imperius him. Especially since he couldn't present evidence that revealed that it was being presented, or had been collected, by Voldemort.
Alternatively, Snape would reason correctly that Dumbledore and the Order of the Phoenix failed to beat Voldemort before, having to be rescued by an unrepeatable deus ex machina, and they'll fail to beat him again, especially now that he's returned with greater knowledge and power, and proven immortality.
Lucius said that his own Dark Mark didn't "truly bind [him]" since he was Imperiused. Voldy could prove that bit, but that might be revealing a bit much...
"might' is the central word. It's not good enough for Voldemort.