20

Throughout Harry Potter, we see the Killing Curse used constantly by ne'er-do-wells. We are later told that using it damages the soul, and this damage is what makes Horcruxes possible. However, if we are to think of it as flinging a part of one's soul at an enemy (as it appears to be; Harry retained a piece of soul shrapnel lodged in him), should the soul not also be damaged when it misses, IE when Voldemort destroyed the centaur statue in the Ministry of Magic?

Gallifreyan
  • 20,473
  • 6
  • 103
  • 164
  • 47
    The Killing Curse does not involve flinging pieces of one's soul around. – Adamant Dec 12 '16 at 17:45
  • 8
    So casting the AK is what damages the soul not the fact of murdering someone? Meaning if V kills someone with a spoon http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lovt78xyM01qa0o0mo1_500.gif his soul'd remain fluffy and white? –  Dec 12 '16 at 17:52
  • 13
    The damage comes from killing. The curse is nearly a means to an end – Matrim Cauthon Dec 12 '16 at 18:26
  • http://meta.scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/10145/how-does-the-community-feel-about-including-asterisks-underscores-or-similar-pl – Mithical Dec 13 '16 at 19:36
  • @Mithrandir "tl;dr: No, there's no rule against it. " I need the emphasis. –  Dec 13 '16 at 19:44
  • 3
    As a followup, one might wonder if one has to know that one has successfully committed murder in order to split one's soul. – David Z Dec 14 '16 at 05:16
  • 2
    Another iteration of the old Trading Card Game/Board Game argument "If the effect cannot be resolved, do I have to pay the cost?" :P – xDaizu Dec 14 '16 at 12:09

2 Answers2

64

It seems doubtful that this would damage the soul

I think you've misunderstood how the soul-splitting process works; all signs point to the act of murder being the thing that breaks a soul, rather than the Killing Curse specifically; Slughorn tells us, for instance (emphasis mine):

[T]he soul is supposed to remain intact and whole. Splitting it is an act of violation, it is against nature."

"But how do you do it?"

"By an act of evil — the supreme act of evil. By committing murder. Killing rips the soul apart.

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince Chapter 23: "Horcruxes"

Although the Killing Curse is, as the name implies, the most expedient way of committing murder, it certainly isn't the only one; as kviiri reminds me in comments, at least two of Voldemort's Horcruxes were created from murders by other means:

  • Myrtle Warren, used by Voldemort to turn the diary into a Horcrux, was killed by the basilisk in the Chamber of Secrets:

    Myrtle swelled importantly, her face shining. "I died."

    "How?" said Harry.

    "No idea," said Myrtle in hushed tones. "I just remember seeing a pair of great, big, yellow eyes. My whole body sort of seized up, and then I was floating away..."

    Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets Chapter 16: "The Chamber of Secrets"

  • Hepzibah Smith, used to turn Hufflepuff's Cup into a Horcrux, was poisoned:

    "[Smith's House-elf] remembered putting something in her mistress's cocoa that turned out not to be sugar, but a lethal and little-known poison," said Dumbledore. "It was concluded that she had not meant to do it, but being old and confused —"

    "Voldemort modified her memory, just like he did with Morfin!"

    "Yes, that is my conclusion too," said Dumbledore.

    Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince Chapter 20: "Lord Voldemort's Request"

Likewise, as Adamant remarks in a comment on the question, casting the Killing Curse doesn't throw around a bit of your soul; what happened to Voldemort was a rather unique case.

Judging by Slughorn's statement, it seems as though the intention to commit murder isn't enough. That seems fair; Harry intends to commit murder on a couple of occasions (against Snape at the end of Half-Blood Prince, for example), but by the end of the series his soul is still perfectly intact.

So, although we can't be absolutely certain how the magic would react, it seems most plausible that your soul is only damaged if you actually succeed.

Community
  • 1
Jason Baker
  • 163,357
  • 44
  • 898
  • 794
  • 1
    An upvote-worthy answer. If I recall correctly there is even explicit canon that one of Voldy's horcruxes (and as such, splitting of one's soul) was made without the killing curse. Hepzibah Smith was poisoned, and yet she was used to create one. – kviiri Dec 12 '16 at 18:17
  • 7
    From the Snape-Dumbledore conversation it seems as if it's left to one's consideration whether comitting murder splits your soul or not... depending on your intentions. might be that S killing D hadn't damaged S' soul but Pettigrew betraying the potters and causing their deaths did P's? –  Dec 12 '16 at 18:20
  • @kviiri Good catch; I'd forgotten about that. Thanks for the reminder – Jason Baker Dec 12 '16 at 18:24
  • 3
    @R.Skeeter Possibly. I suspect the magic works off some definition of "murder" that isn't well-explored, but is sufficiently nuanced that Bad Guys are affected while Good Guys aren't. But I couldn't begin to speculate on how, in practice, that would work – Jason Baker Dec 12 '16 at 18:30
  • 3
    I am not even sure Myrtle's death was caused directly by TR, yet he used it to make a horcrux... i cannot figure out JKR's metaphysic :( –  Dec 12 '16 at 18:42
  • 2
    @R.Skeeter The basilisk doesn't seem to be very sentient, it completely obeys whoever controls it. So when Tom used it against Myrtle, it wasn't that different from using a wand. I think the confusion just stems from basilisk being unusual means to kill someone. If Tom ordered a dog to tear down a man to pieces, I'm sure most people would definitely say it's a murder. – Malcolm Dec 12 '16 at 22:27
  • @Malcolm It's a basilisk. Simple eye contact with it kills, and looks like the basilisk & Tom were taken by surprise. –  Dec 13 '16 at 06:50
  • @R.Skeeter But we know for a fact that whatever happened counted as a murder since it allowed to create a horcrux. It either means that purely accidental deaths can still somehow count as a murder, or that there was an order to kill. The latter seems more likely. He saw an unexpected witness and ordered to kill her. – Malcolm Dec 13 '16 at 07:22
  • @Malcolm could be, but as Myrtle describes it, she opened the door saw a pair of yellow eyes and died. Maybe Tom gave the order or it could've happened even before he had time to react. Maybe the presence of a corpse and that his pet basilisk he'd let lose killed someone sufficed, so Tom whipped out his diary and created a horcrux. I always wondered why was it a cheap diary, but maybe that's all he had on him to work with. –  Dec 13 '16 at 08:12
  • @R.Skeeter What I said before still stands, the most likely and logical thing is that he gave an order. Of course, Myrtle wouldn't be able to tell that since she doesn't speak the snake language. As for the diary, I don't remember any evidence that you have to create a horcrux right away. – Malcolm Dec 13 '16 at 09:19
  • @JasonBaker Well, when you kill someone who has already killed an innocent, their soul is cracked. Does it crack the soul to destroy (or banish, as seems to be the case in HP universe) an already cracked soul? – Luaan Dec 13 '16 at 09:29
  • 3
    "I think you've misunderstood how the soul-splitting process works..." Just as a minor comment - I think nobody understands how the soul-splitting process works. ;) – NoDataDumpNoContribution Dec 13 '16 at 10:04
  • 2
    I always suspected that the actual "split" was a willful act as part of the horcrux...the murder part was more like creasing a piece of paper so it's easier to tear. – Chris Pfohl Dec 13 '16 at 15:18
  • @JasonBaker I don't think it's super nuanced. Murder requires the malicious intent to kill someone and for the that person to actually get killed by the act. I would assume Snape killing Dumbledore wouldn't count because Dumbledore intended for Snape to kill him. And some of the other various acts performed by the good guys were to defend someone or used as a last resort. – Jake Dec 13 '16 at 15:20
  • _ it seems most plausible that your soul is only damaged if you actually succeed._ - wasn't that Dumbledore's reasoning for asking Snape to kill him instead of Draco? – mgarciaisaia Dec 13 '16 at 17:17
  • 2
    @Crisfole I think that's backward; murder is what splinters the soul, but trapping one of those splinters into a horcrux is a (typically) willful act. It seems the size of the splinter is dependent upon the sentience or the soulfulness of the target. Killing animals, for example, is not likely to splinter the soul the same way, whether by some mundane means (beheading a Hippogriff or slaughtering a chicken, for example), or with Avada Kedavra (like when Moody/Crouch Jr successfully used the Killing Curse on an insect in DADA class). – TylerH Dec 13 '16 at 21:41
  • 1
    @Crisfole I say typically it's a willful act to create a horcrux because we all know Voldemort's last horcrux, Harry, was an accident, and quite possibly groundbreaking magic in its own right (has any witch or wizard made another person into a horcrux of their own soul before?). I recall the reasoning there being that Voldemort's soul was already splintered into so many pieces by then (perhaps intentionally fragmented into horcruxes moreso than anyone in the past) that the proverbial 'glue' holding his soul together just snapped when he attempted to murder Harry as a baby. – TylerH Dec 13 '16 at 21:44
  • @mgarciaisaia: It seems Draco didn't really want to kill Dumbledore when it came down to it. Dumbledore saw that very clearly, and told him that he is not a murderer and Draco responded that he was doing all that because he had no choice (so he thought) otherwise his family would be killed. It's an interesting question what would happen if he actually carried out the killing. Dumbledore as you say seems to think that it would damage his soul, and perhaps that is because Draco will do it with the intention to murder, even if he is unwilling. In contrast, Snape did it with the intent of mercy. – user21820 Dec 14 '16 at 06:53
  • 1
    According to canon, remorse can mend the soul. By deduction, it's the opposite - the rush from killing, the act of being glad that you killed someone instead of regretting it (being accidental or on purpose), what damages the soul and allows you to perform the horcrux spell successfully. It makes sense - it's an act of evil to "muahaha" at a death of someone, that's the unnatural part Slughorn is talking about. A healthy soul would react with sorrow instead of joy - like Snape did. So you could say that the mere fact that you don't regret it shows your soul was cracked to begin with. – orion Dec 14 '16 at 08:30
26

Actually it seems that it does not, at least in the opinion of very clever wizards who knew quite a lot about the dark arts (spoiler alert):

Snape himself thought that it would not damage his soul when he used it to kill Dumbledore. He agreed to it when Dumbledore asked him for this "one favour", and he actually carried it out.

The relevant conversation was (emphasis mine):

"If you don't mind dying," said Snape roughly, "why not let Draco do it?"

"That boy's soul is not yet so damaged," said Dumbledore. "I would not have it ripped apart on my account."

"And my soul, Dumbledore? Mine?"

"You alone know whether it will harm your soul to help an old man avoid pain and humiliation," said Dumbledore. "I ask this one, great favour of you, Severus, because death is coming for me as surely as the Chudley Cannons will finish bottom of this year's league. I confess I should prefer a quick, painless exit to the protracted and messy affair it will be if, for instance, Greyback is involved - I hear Voldemort has recruited him? Or dear Bellatrix, who likes to play with her food before she eats it."

His tone was light, but his blue eyes pierced Snape as they had frequently pierced Harry, as though the soul they discussed was visible to him. At last Snape gave another curt nod.

Dumbledore seemed satisfied. "Thank you, Severus..."

It implies that the intention behind the killing determines whether or not it maims the soul. Intriguingly, it also suggests that mercy killing is not damaging to the soul in the HP world.

user21820
  • 969
  • 1
  • 12
  • 15