Dumbledore suggests a plausible explanation for this when he says “If my opponent had been Lucius, perhaps.” Suggests that Lucius is not a rational agent in the sense that he will make negative expected value moves for the sake of vengeance. Voldemort, however, is a rational agent in that sense.
Though I’m not sure Voldemort “blinked,” exactly. Voldemort probably didn’t care if the families of Death Eaters were killed in retaliation for things done to family members of the Order of the Phoenix. Instead, he made the following calculation: (1) I can afford to tell Lucius I will torture him to death (and maybe kill his baby boy) if he does anything stupid in retaliation for Narcissa’s death and (2) but if I go on killing family members of my opponents, my Death Eaters may rebel to protect their families, Dark Mark or no.
Be careful when describing negative-expected-value vengeance as irrational. “I will precommit to be the kind of person who takes vengeance, even after it’s too late for that to have positive expected value” is almost just a sub-case of “I one-box”.
Hence the ”...in the sense… …in that sense...” qualifiers. If you can suggest a better term, I might switch to using it, otherwise next time I’ll wave my arms even harder to show I’m tabooing my words.
It’s interesting in part because Harry is right that the behavior is unusual. Historically, the group that (1) is led by a strong leader who encourages personality cults, (2) doesn’t believe in the rule of law, and (3) resorts to violence at the slightest excuse is not the group that unilaterally ends dynamics like hostage taking and hostage killing.
It’s interesting in part because Harry is right that the behavior is unusual. Historically, the group that (1) is led by a strong leader who encourages personality cults, (2) doesn’t believe in the rule of law, and (3) resorts to violence at the slightest excuse is not the group that unilaterally ends dynamics like hostage taking and hostage killing.
They’re the only group that can unilaterally end it since the other side wasn’t doing those things to begin with.
As I understand the historical dynamic, there is a conflict and the status quo is that dependents are safe. One side (call them Blue) escalates by attacking dependents, breaking the status quo. The other side (call them Green) might not have chosen to break the prior status quo, but once it is broken, they decide to start attacking dependents. Green might even escalate further.
Historically, these types of conflicts seldom return to the prior status quo. Most frequently, a new (bloodier) status quo is reached, or one side wins and ends the conflict. Occasionally, Green does not escalate, or decides that the new status quo is unacceptable and unilaterally deescalates (which doesn’t always successfully return to the old status quo). What essentially never happens is Blue escalates, Green escalates, Blue unilaterally deescalates, old status quo returns.
In short, I notice I am confused by Dumbledore’s story of the safety of dependents at various times during the last war.
What essentially never happens is Blue escalates, Green escalates, Blue unilaterally deescalates, old status quo returns.
Just to make sure I understand, consider the following hypothetical account: Sam and I are having a nonviolent argument. I get furious and punch Sam. Sam punches me back. I apologize for having turned this into a violent interaction and promise not to do that anymore. Sam agrees not to do it anymore either. We return to our nonviolent argument.
Is that an example of the sort of situation you’re describing, which you claim essentially never happens?
The historical assertion is in the context of group political conflict involving violence.
Apocryphally, the Mafia had a rule that they didn’t target families. Assuming this was true even in conflicts between families (and I don’t know this to be actually true), I’m saying that the family (Blue) that first broke that norm was not likely to be the family that unilaterally returns to the “don’t kill dependents” rule. Particularly if a lot of the unity of the Blue family is based on the strong personality of Blue’s leader.
(Mostly, I’m thinking of the Cold-War era internal conflicts between proxies of the United States and the USSR, especially in Latin America and Africa i.e. the Sandinistas. I’m not saying every conflict of that type escalated in the way I’m describing, just that the escalator basically never deescalated while the conflict continued).
I don’t agree with your inferences about Voldemort’s intentions.
First, I tend to think that Lucius was in fact Imperioused, so his will to vengeance was not a concern. And the undesirability of an all out war from Dumbledore’s side was obvious—Dumbledore’s side had the numbers. In a Total War of attrition, Voldemort was bound to lose, as Quirrell spelled out in his speech.
His goal is a political one. He has the Great Leader view of politics, and wants all of Britain resolved to follow the Great Leader. How to achieve that? Attack magical Britain with a ruthless enemy, to make them more ruthless in kind, and more ready to follow a ruthless Great Leader. Then create his own Ruthless Leader to fill that position. Who better to fill that role than the one who defeats the first Dark Lord? Twice? And has been prophesied as his enemy? And then he uploads into Harry when Harry supposedly defeats him again.
Dumbledore got his power by defeating Grindelwald. Harrymort will get his power by defeating Voldemort.
If Lucius really was imperiused, why does his son think he sided with Voldemort deliberately?
“You’re right, it’s fair, I can’t complain,” Harry said instead. “So what about He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named? Not as bad as he was made out to be?”
Draco looked bitter, at that. “So you think it’s all just making Father’s side look good and Dumbledore’s side look bad, and that I believe it all myself just because Father told me.”
“It’s a possibility I’m considering,” Harry said evenly.
Draco’s voice was low and intense. “They knew. My father knew, his friends knew. They knew the Dark Lord was evil. But he was the only chance anyone had against Dumbledore! The only wizard anywhere who was powerful enough to fight him! Some of the other Death Eaters were truly evil too, like Bellatrix Black—Father isn’t like that—but Father and his friends had to do it, Harry, they had to, Dumbledore was taking over everything, the Dark Lord was the only hope anyone had left!”
I grant that it’s a good point. But that story sounds like just the kind of political justification the Death Eaters would tell their children. Whatever power Dumbledore has, has he really been that despotic? Particularly, in comparison to Voldemort?
Draco isn’t in a position to know first hand. He must have been just barely born when Narcissa was killed.
I often interpret on a narrative basis as much as a “factual” basis. I think Malfoy is being portrayed sympathetically, and I don’t think the “save us from Dumbledore” story holds much water. If the story had been that “Dumbledore is destroying the wizarding race by promoting Mudbloods”, then that would have been a credible ideology for a sympathetic Malfoy—one who was actually for something positive.
Also, I find Lucius’s story moderately credible
“The Dark Lord could hardly have begun recruiting among pureblood
families without the support of House Malfoy. I demurred, and
he simply made sure of me. His own Death Eaters did not know it until
afterward, hence the false Mark I bear; though since I did not truly
consent, it does not bind me. Some of the Death Eaters still believe I
was foremost among their number, and for the peace of this nation I let
them believe it, to keep them controlled. But I was not such a fool as to
support that ill-fated adventurer of my own choice—”
And since no one believes it anyway, why would he tell it to the Longbottoms, who certainly won’t believe it, unless it were true?
I expect at some point that the non-binding nature of his dark mark becomes a plot point.
“My son is my heart,” said the senior Malfoy, “the last worthwhile
thing I have left in this world, and this I say to you in a spirit of friendship:
if he were to come to harm, I would give my life over to vengeance.
But so long as my son does not come to harm, I wish you the best of luck
in your endeavors. And as you have asked nothing more of me, I will
ask nothing more of you.”
This seems like an earnest speech. That he would speak to Voldemort “in the spirit of friendship”, and expect that to mean something to Voldemort, is another interesting bit of info that seems incongruous to the usual Dark Lord narrative.
There are all sorts of incongruities in the onstage actions of Voldemort and Malfoy, and the stories of what happened offstage. I’m leaning toward taking what Malfoy says here as the truth.
But that story sounds like just the kind of political justification the Death Eaters would tell their children.
Exactly. But in your theory, Lucius isn’t a Death Eater, he’s an Imperius victim. So why would he do everything he could to raise his son to want to grow up to be a Death Eater?
And since no one believes it anyway, why would he tell it to the Longbottoms, who certainly won’t believe it, unless it were true?
Literally the very next sentence was
“Ignore him,” Madam Longbottom said, the instruction addressed to Harry as well as Neville. “He must spend the rest of his life pretending, for fear of your testimony under Veritaseum.”
And I agree that it’s incongruous for Lucius to speak to Voldemort “in the spirit of friendship”, I just think it’s more incongruous with the Imperius narrative.
So why would he do everything he could to raise his son to want to grow up to be a Death Eater?
He wants him to grow up to be the leader of the Purebloods, which exactly the same thing as leader of the Death Eaters.
“Ignore him,” Madam Longbottom said, the instruction addressed to Harry as well as Neville. “He must spend the rest of his life pretending, for fear of your testimony under Veritaseum.”
And how would that constitute evidence that he was not a willing Death Eater if everyone believes he is faking? Certainly he should never affirmatively say he was a willing Death Eater, but this little speech that no one believes amounts to evidence that he wasn’t a Death Eater to who? The speech does him absolutely no good.
In fact, I’d say the speech only harms him. The Longbottoms of the world won’t believe him, but those who sympathized with the Death Eaters, much of his natural power base, would likely be annoyed at the disavowal, even if they didn’t believe it either.
When a schemer says something that does him absolutely no good, a reasonable interpretation is that it is true.
And I agree that it’s incongruous for Lucius to speak to Voldemort “in the spirit of friendship”, I just think it’s more incongruous with the Imperius narrative.
As pointed out, he needed Lucius to draw Purebloods. First he asked. When Lucius declined, he spelled him. He forced compliance. Not so friendly, but the least abusive path that achieved his goal. That might count as friendly with a Flawless Instrument of Death.
I expect we get the backstory on Lucius filled in some day. Although I’m wondering if EY has made a major change in the plot. Seems like a lot of work went into the Draco character, but he seems like a soap opera character who hit it big in the movies, and was quickly written off the show.
The “in the spirit of friendship” thing makes no sense if Lucius was imperioused. It’s incongruous with cliche villainy, but I think it makes sense in context, as a way of saying “I do not bear a grudge against you for leading me into that disastrous war, but I will not be your follower anymore” (because a friend is not a follower). It’s almost a subtle insult.
And Lucius is a bit sympathetic, but he’s not THAT sympathetic. It’s pretty clear that he’s a power-hungry bigot. “Dumbledore is destroying the wizarding race by promoting Mudbloods” is probably closer to his real motivation for joining Voldemort, but “save us from Dumbledore” is a better message to broadcast publicly, since it has a chance of swaying non-blood purists.
This may, in fact, be partly a matter of what Draco chose to emphasize when talking to Harry. At one point, he thinks to himself that fear of the magic going away (because of those damn mudbloods!) is the reason people become Death Eaters, but he doesn’t say that to Harry, presumably because he knew Harry wouldn’t find that convincing.
The “in the spirit of friendship” thing makes no sense if Lucius was imperioused.
A person without context would find Harry’s continued friendship with Draco after Draco tortured him unfathomable, and yet it was true. Dumbledore announced to Harry that he would be a well kept prisoner in Hogwarts. That too, requires context to appreciate. A great many things that Dumbledore has done require a lot of context for justification.
We don’t have the context of Malfoy’s and Voldemort’s relationship in the same way, and the friendship comment is hard to reconcile absent that context.
Harry was clear that he prefers a scientific civilization over a magical one, but I think he could respect someone who wanted to preserve a magical civilization if it was threatened with destruction.
I think we just don’t have enough of the back story to make definitive conclusions; our priors are slightly differently and we come up with different conclusion. I’m not the confident in my conclusions. I’m less confident in yours.
But I disagree with your last paragraph. Had Draco given the “preserve magic from the mudblood menace!” defense of the Death Eaters, Harry had fairly good reasons to think they were wrong about that, so it just makes them look murderously insane. But the “Dumbledore killed my mother” line actually made Harry stop and think for a second.
And even if Harry might have sympathized, Draco didn’t know that.
That’s maybe the rational reaction, but it’s not necessarily how Harry would react. He fantasized about guillotining blood purists, remember?
I’d also reiterate what we know about Lucius’ characterization. He has a deluded view of the world (blood-purism), and he reacts to evidence against that view (the experiment performed by Harry and Draco, which Lucius learned about when Draco got veritaserum’d) by shouting lies! He also has put a great deal of effort into maintaining his power in the wizarding world, and also into grooming his son for a similar role.
In other words, he’s a power-hungry bigot. Exactly the sort of person who would follow Voldemort out of hated for mudbloods and then spin other justifications for public consumption. Also, I get the impression that very few people believe Lucius was imperious’d, and he tells the story not so that others will believe it, but for the sake of plausible deniability
But maybe our priors are just different, as you said.
“I’d also reiterate what we know about Lucius’ characterization. He has a deluded view of the world (blood-purism), and he reacts to evidence against that view (the experiment performed by Harry and Draco, which Lucius learned about when Draco got veritaserum’d) by shouting lies! -- But maybe our priors are just different, as you said.”
Consider Lucius’s, and Draco’s, priors. Namely, they do not actually have the priors to explain why the result of their experiment means what Harry says it means—not independent of Muggles, anyway, and possibly not independent of Harry. Without replicating all the experiments (or, at least a significant number) on different color peas or whatever, to arrive at a basic understanding of genetics (and an explanation for awkward questions like “why doesn’t skin color or height work that way? who says that, or something else entirely, isn’t a better model for magic?), the simpler explanation (to Lucius—and, honestly, to Draco, divorced of his complex motivations for wanting to stay in the Bayesian Conspiracy) is that Harry examined the data in advance and made up a theory to fit the numbers to what he wanted to convince Draco of.
P.S. Unless Veritaserum in HPMOR works similarly to how truth serum works in (of all things) The Hitchhiker’s Guide To The Galaxy, we can’t conclusively assume that Draco necessarily told Lucius any particular fact. What line of questioning leads to Lucius finding out about the experiment?
And since no one believes it anyway, why would he tell it to the Longbottoms, who certainly won’t believe it, unless it were true?
A good question to ask. Might he not be telling it for the benefit of Harrymort? I still don’t understand why he would do this, but at least Malfoy has a track record of saying confusing things to Harry. It could mean “I am no longer your follower” or “You need my support” or “I am the one in charge of your Death Eaters now, and don’t forget it” or even just “In case you don’t know, this is my official position at the moment.”
But even after Narcissa died, I don’t think Voldemort was facing a Total War against a united Magical Britain. It was the Death Eaters vs. the Order of the Phoenix, and what evidence we has indicates that the Order was losing, even when led by a more ruthless Dumbledore.
That’s what’s so puzzling here. This version of Voldemort isn’t stupid, but it still looks like he screwed up.
More likely it was his intention that things sit like that.
He ‘lost’ on purpose. But before he did, he taught Dumbledore to lose in the hostage and ransom thing.
Step 1 : gather the fearful and lead them by fear
Voldemort championed the old blood that felt threatened by muggleborn and was very cruel to them to keep them in line.
Step 2 : force most powerful opponents into taking actions contrary to their ideology
Voldemort probably did any number of nasty things to break lower rank ideologists and might have done an evil thing or two that did not break Dumbledore, but eventually he was successful.
Step 2a : keep a lid on things so they cannot resolve themselves through reasonable application of voilence
Voldemort killed Narcissa once he knew Dumbledore was conditioned to accept the blame and the conflict extending truce that came after.
Step 3 : watch for an opportunity to exit the stage, take it
Voldemort faked his death when he found circumstances that could make a death event of sufficient believabilty for the masses.
Step 4 : hide out under assumed identities while enemies and former subordinates continue to not resolve things either peaceably or voilently for as long as necessary
Voldemort is Jeffe or Quirrell or any number of other people for ten years. He might also have been technically dead for some or all of that time. That does not significantly alter the scenario.
Step 5 : gather tools and staff as opportunities present themselves
Voldemort has the Resurrection Stone, Bella, and who knows what all else.
Step 6 : watch for an opportunity to stage a coup over either side of now old conflict, take it
Voldemort may have multiple scenarios for returning to power. Right now he is playing king maker for Boy Who Lived.
Step 7 : smash opposing side of nearly meaningless conflict because they have been conditioned to fight entirely the wrong kind of war, unite as many factions as possible
Step 8 : dominate world
Step 9 : throw tasteful party with select guests and absolutely, positively, never, ever monologue
That was when Father had told Draco about the Rule of Three, which was that any plot which required more than three different things to happen would never work in real life.
Father had further explained that since only a fool would attempt a plot that was as complicated as possible, the real limit was two.
Your plan is unworkable, because the probability that everything needed for the plan to happen would happen is too low. HPMOR!Voldemort is not a fool, so he would not have planned an unworkable plan (and, as Hat and Cloak, advised Blaise Zambini not to try such plans). Therefore this is not Voldemort’s plan.
Fine. You accept that Voldemort did rise to power, yes? Let that be one plot that had however many “different things to happen” but worked. That is one plot with one payout that is collected without being dependent on other plots and covers step 1.
In step 2 his plot depends on his most idealistic enemies breaking from their ideals. That is 1 “different things to happen”. He maybe tries a lot of different time, and eventually the Aberforth Event occurs, so the plot progresses.
Step 2a is the same plot and includes another “different thing.” After he kills Narcissa, his formerly idealistic enemies must claim responsibility. He has conditioned them to do this in the way he has spread terror and treated them, so it does not come out of the blue, but it is the second “different thing” for that plot.
It works and he is rewarded with a conflict without escalation, where he can continue to amass power while his own side does not get out of control and his enemies become more reasonable and less idealistic, therefore easier to manipulate and less unpredictable. This second plot covers steps 2 and 2a. He could continue at this point as he had, building power for a faction, taking different steps or starting different plots.
The third plot has the goal of unity and only depends on two “different things.” The first is that he have an opportunity to step out of the game, the second is that he has an opportunity to step back in. Again, there is the throwing shit at the wall approach, here. He can set up situation after situation that might lead to an opportunity to step out or in, and take the ones that he expects to work best.
When this plot is completed, he is rewarded with control of a new third side in a two sided war. He can do what he wants with this new faction, execute any number of plots from this point forward. This covers steps 3, 4, & 5.
The fourth plot is what he is preparing for, but isn’t executing as far as I can tell, taking over the government. Whatever this depends on, you know he’s up to something and this is no worse an answer than many other reasonable answers.
I’m fairly certain that Voldemort is not planning a party, though. That was a joke.
Well, yes, if it was planned from the beginning. It could have been improvised.
To summarize Percent_Carbon in a way that brings out the potential that the plan he explained was improvised…
Step 1. Conquer Britain as Voldemort. Doesn’t work as well as hoped, Britain is divided, not united.
Step 2. Use power to try to set up a situation that you think you can exploit later. Wait years before you see a good way to exploit it
Step 3. See the way Harry Potter came out, see an opportunity to conquer a united Britain, and go for it
Probability is in the mind. If you’re that much better at chess than you opponent, you can execute excessively complicated traps just to amuse yourself, and still be quite certain of victory. If Riddle knew more and thought better than Dumbledore, enough so that he can model his reactions precisely (as he seems able to) then what seems like an unlikely plot may be to Riddle merely an entertaining diversion.
That said, I agree that Godric’s Hollow probably didn’t go as Riddle planned.
Doing stupid things to amuse yourself seems like exactly the opposite of everything Voldemort has ever done. If ever anyone has epitomized ruthless efficiency, he’s the guy.
Quirrell frequently brags about things he shouldn’t mention, things with massive blowback potential. He also obvious relishes outsmarting and dominating others.
I’m not just disagreeing for argument’s sake. Look at the plot that resulted in the three-way tie in the underwater Defense battle. Clearly the universe of this fic allows absurdly complex plots to work when the plotters are of a high enough level.
Look at the plot that resulted in the three-way tie in the underwater Defense battle. Clearly the universe of this fic allows absurdly complex plots to work when the plotters are of a high enough level.
Quirrel himself noted that plans that contingent on uncontrollable events tend to fail. Dumbledore wasn’t counting on that plan working, as he said, “That’s why it’s important to have more than one plot going at once.” The plan that resulted in the three way tie succeeded largely due to luck.
Look at the plot that resulted in the three-way tie in the underwater Defense battle.
It only looks complicated. Yes, it was not extremely probable that Blaise would be amongst the last few standing. But very quickly all teams raced towards an even score in a fairly predictable self-organizing way. So there weren’t really a lot of moving parts there, just one complicated system with fairly predictable behavior, and some complicated-looking plotting to get Blaise’s cooperation, and just a bit of luck that Blaise didn’t get knocked out earlier (helped by Blaise being mostly interested in survival instead of racking up points)
Doing stupid things to amuse yourself seems like exactly the opposite of everything Voldemort has ever done. If ever anyone has epitomized ruthless efficiency, he’s the guy.
That does not match my model of canon Voldemort, and I assume that MoR pre-Harry Voldemort was very similar.
I expect Voldemort to kill/torture valuable minions because of impulses (“to amuse yourself”) even if it would harm his overall goals.
“The Rule of Rationalist Fiction states thwat rationality is not magic.”
In other words, such a hypothesis about Voldemort’s plan is defensible only if there’s a better explanation for how he could pull it off than “he’s just that good.”
Granted, Voldemort also has access to magic. But based on what we know about how magic works in this universe, it seems unlikely that, even given magic, Voldemort could acquire the knowledge necessary to be confident of making such an excessively complicated plan work.
Chess is completely orderly. In chess, you don’t have to deal with unknown unknowns, or pieces getting moved around by chance, or your opponent inventing new pieces in the middle of the game, etc. Just because you can execute extremely complicated plans in chess doesn’t mean that the plausibility transfers to real life.
Father had told Draco that to fathom a strange plot, one technique was to look at what ended up happening, assume it was the intended result, and ask who benefited.
You seem to be doing the opposite than what the quote indicates, trying to find ways in which Voldemort supposedly benefitted, in order to present him as the person behind every ploy.
If Voldemort benefitted from his supposed defeat at the night of Godric’s Hollow, we’ve not yet seen how. If Voldemort benefitted from the burning of Narcissa Malfoy, we’ve not yet seen how.
You are following the exact opposite process than the quote indicates. Which may be okay, after all it’s only one technique, not the ONLY possible technique, but nonetheless quoting it as an explanation for your reasoning seems misguided.
quoting it as an explanation for your reasoning seems misguided.
This line seems to have caused some confusion downthread. On Percent_Carbon’s view, t’s a very good explanation for the reasoning, in that it seems to have generated understanding of the reasoning.
Well, I don’t know about “very good.” But it worked this time. I don’t think that was a good way to do what I wanted done, though. So I’ll probably not do that again.
Mostly agree with this comment, but it seems likely to me that HPMOR!Voldemort’s intentions in going to Godric’s Hollow were different than Canon!Voldemort’s, given that HPMOR!Voldemort is a lot smarter than Canon!Voldemort.
I don’t think similar reasoning applies to Narcissa’s death, because it’s less likely that Voldemort would have been able to foresee its effects.
Mostly agree with this comment, but it seems likely to me that HPMOR!Voldemort’s intentions in going to Godric’s Hollow were different than Canon!Voldemort’s, given that HPMOR!Voldemort is a lot smarter than Canon!Voldemort.
I agree with this. For that, and also for other reasons, I assign less than 20% probability that Voldemort went to Godric’s Hollow for a purpose as simple as “attempt to kill baby Harry”.
Oh, but even Canon!Voldemort meant to make a Horcrux when he went to Godric’s Hollow (or so speculated Dumbledore in book 6, IIRC). So I think there must have been more to it than even that.
Canon!Dumbledore speculated that Voldemort was going to kill Harry, and then create his last Horcrux using that death—but killing Harry was his primary purpose for going there; the fact that Voldemort also meant to make the last Horcrux at the time was incidental.
If you need further clarification about what I believe, I don’t think HPMoR!Voldemort purposed to kill Harry at all that night—atleast not physically.
I understand you’re following false reasoning, so I don’t know what “seems to have worked”. I, for one, don’t
believe that it was Voldemort who killed Narcissa Malfoy.
I said something. You understood what I meant. You explained it pretty clearly, too.
In that post, and I guess in the next one and maybe even in this one, I am advocating that those 9 steps are accurately Voldemort’s plan. But it is not important that I convince you, or anyone, that they are accurate. It is enough that I convince you to consider them. The theory’s own merits and flaws will determine its fate.
Respectfully, discussion and debate are not consider successful if all you do is cause the other person to understand your position. If no one’s position changes, something is wrong.
Again, my goal is not to convince you or anyone else.
My goal is to test the speculated scenario. I advocate for it not because I want to convince others, but because it doesn’t get much mileage on its own.
As it gets picked apart, I learn more about the the scenario itself, about the material it’s built on, and about the speculative process.
Respectfully, it is silly to assume that no one’s position is changing.
So Dumbledore was hiding behind a curtain, aced Voldemort, and carved a tasteful little scar into Harry’s forehead? Because that seems to be the closest thing to a conclusion one can draw from that method as applied to Godric’s Hollow.
I’d propose that he has a slightly different plan. I’m going to give you my pet theory here so hold onto your hats.
I think Quirrellmort probably decided at one point in the past that it would be way easier to take over magical Britain if everyone thought he’d already failed at doing so. I think he’s probably going for control of both sides. Imagine if Darth Vader had created the rebel alliance in order to funnel potential opponents into a harmless straw-opposition: he could let them attempt the occasional coup, always avoiding any real cost to himself and throw them the occasional minor victory to keep them on the hook.
To quote the chapter Contagious Lies:
“Yess,” Harry hissed dryly, “very amussing, I am ssure. Except now am sstuck in Hogwartss for next ssix years, for ssafety! I have decided that I will, indeed, sseek power; and confinement iss not helpful for that. Musst convince sschoolmasster that Dark Lord iss not yet awakened, that esscape was work of ssome other power—”
Again the rapid flickering of the snake’s tongue; the snakish laughter was stronger, dryer, this time. “Amateur foolisshnesss.”
“Pardon?” hissed Harry.
“You ssee misstake, think of undoing, ssetting time back to sstart. Yet not even with hourglasss can time be undone. Musst move forward insstead. You think of convincing otherss they are misstaken. Far eassier to convince them they are right. Sso conssider, boy: what new happensstance would make schoolmasster decide you were ssafe once more, ssimultaneoussly advance your other agendass?”
Harry stared at the snake, puzzled. His mind tried to comprehend and unravel the riddle -
“Iss it not obviouss?” hissed the snake. Again the tongue flickered sardonic laughter. “To free yoursself, to gain power in Britain, you musst again be sseen to defeat the Dark Lord.”
That’s obviously not the same plan I’m talking about, but we can see that Quirrell has at least been thinking along similar lines to me. I can see a number of different ways he could have formulated this plan, but the simplest one seems to be:
Set up evil organisation and make an attempt at taking the country over. Allow everyone to gauge your intelligence from your actions, and to form the strongest alliance they are capable of forming against you. Everyone’s gauge of your intelligence will in fact be off by several points, since this isn’t really your big ploy—it’s actually a feint and you intend it to fail.
Fake your own defeat, simultaneously creating a (young, impressionable) hero for your opponents and removing yourself from all further suspicion, since almost everyone will think you’re dead.
Become a role model to the aforementioned young hero and mould him to your will. The kid is in the perfect position to take over the leadership of your opposition, so you now effectively have control of both major players in the game.
Win.
This is also foregrounded in Coordination Problems 2 and 3. Quirrell wants Harry to bind the population together under him and Harry makes a short speech about the dangers of group thinking. Quirrell’s reaction is one of anger—obviously he can’t have Harry breaking the monopoly that the Order of the Phoenix has on do-gooding, because that opens the field up for thousands of free-agent challengers to Quirrell’s power. It also mirrors Harry and Draco’s plan to play the two sides off against each other, except obviously Harry is aiming for world optimisation, not domination.
Finally, Dumbledore seems to think Voldemort is still alive, but he’s either pretending to have irrational justifications for this or he really does. I think it’s waaaay more likely that Dumbledore is just playing dumb, since he’s definitely smarter than he lets on, as evidenced by his and Snape’s big discussion about the Bellatrix thing, but I’m not entirely sure how much Dumbly knows for sure. Quirrell knows Dumbledore acts as though he thinks Voldemort is still alive. The real wildcard is Harry, because Quirrell probably wasn’t expecting him to be such a major agent in all this, he’s almost certainly playing Xanatos chess at this point trying to keep ahead of Harry and keep his plan alive.
If I were in Voldemort’s shoes I definitely wouldn’t want to stake decades of work on a plan that could be derailed by my “hero” simply dying in an accident, and that’s disregarding all the ways he could fail to be properly impressionable.
I don’t think either of those represent a big risk to him. Consider that he knows this particular child will be under Dumbledore’s constant care, and that Voldemort himself will always be available to step in and rescue the kid if there’s a risk of him dying early. Obviously that doesn’t lower the risk to zero, but it’s still a big reduction. Also, remember that during the “grooming” phase of this plan it’ll be an eleven-year-old against the most intelligent and insidious wizard in history: given what Voldemort did to Bellatrix it seems like he would be very confident of successfully being able to brainwash Harry.
So, the risk of Harry dying or being unbrainwashable seems low, but it also pays to consider that either contingency wouldn’t stop the plan in it’s tracks. If Harry dies (or has to be killed because he can’t be brainwashed) there are a whole battalion of potential replacements who could emerge as the new posterboy for good—Neville being clearly at the top of the list. Harry is the >best< choice, but he isn’t the only one.
I’ve actually cooled a little on this theory since the latest arc began because I think someone is clearly trying to turn Harry evil (see my theory from earlier in the thread). That said, I still think this would be a workable plan for attaining uncontested dark lordship.
Imagine if Darth Vader had created the rebel alliance in order to funnel potential opponents into a harmless straw-opposition: he could let them attempt the occasional coup, always avoiding any real cost to himself and throw them the occasional minor victory to keep them on the hook.
Did I really just get down-voted for my taste in literature? I’m sure it’s a very nice book and that you enjoyed it very much, Mr Down-voter, but I don’t see how there’s anything objectionable about it not appealing to me. I’ve been told before that I spend /too much/ time reading the classics so don’t worry that my intellectual growth has suffered. I prefer Huxley to Orwell, although the former seems to have been a little touched, judging from his correspondences.
I know I’m new to the forum and all that, but I feel like that shouldn’t be what the voting system is for. Surely in most circumstances up- and down- votes would be better used to indicate how /rational/ you think a post is, not how close to your own opinion it is. People’s karma score shouldn’t suffer just because their opinions differ from the majority. Anyway, regardless of what the actual forum guidelines are you’ll only see me disliking arguments that display poor logic. On that note, consider that down-vote down-voted.
Downvoted the grandparent comment just now for pointlessness (I wasn’t the original offender). It adds nothing to the discussion, and I generally downvote comments that I’d rather didn’t exist.
Voldemort won’t always be able to step in and rescue him, he doesn’t have him under constant tabs, it’s not like he’d instantly know if something bad were about to happen to him.
There are other ways aside from being oppositional that Harry could have failed to be properly impressionable. For instance, he could have been extremely stupid (there would be no way to tell when he was a baby,) and it would have been impossible to set him up as a figurehead leader because he was too obviously incompetent.
In Voldemort’s place, I would never attempt a plan like this, because the odds of success, even at their best, do not justify sinking a couple of decades into its execution. Given the same amount of time, I’d expect him to be able to take over the country several times over. I could probably take over the country several times over in his place, given the same level of power along with an outside perspective on wizarding society, and I don’t think I’m as good at plotting as Quirrelmort.
I’m betting on what happened with Harry not being intentional, because, for all the ways that one can postulate that the events that followed benefited Quirrelmort, I think the fact that he lost his body, much of his power, all his servants, and a decade of time, should shift our prior considerably away from whatever happened that night being deliberate.
Again, I’ve cooled on this theory myself, so I think I probably agree with you in the broad sense that I don’t think this is exactly what happened. I’m still going to argue a few of the points you made though, because if we share an opinion but disagree on the justifications for it I still think that’s a disagreement we should try to heal. Better to be justified but coincidentally wrong than unjustified but coincidentally right, right?
Anyway, I agree with your first point. remember that I said:
Obviously that doesn’t lower the risk to zero, but it’s still a big reduction.
So what I’m saying is, having Voldemort hanging around in the wings won’t save you from everything, but it certainly won’t hurt your chances of survival. There’s nothing to say Voldemort hasn’t done little things to increase Harry’s survival like magically lower the risk of lightning strikes in Surrey. Wizards are more durable than muggles AND Harry also has Dumbledore’s protection AND there’s no absolute reason Voldemort has to use /Harry/ as his posterboy for good—he’s just the best available choice. So I don’t think the risk of Harry dying unexpectedly is great enough to invalidate this plan, although I do agree that it would be inconvenient if it happened.
Your second point, on the other hand, I have to disagree with prima facie. The wizarding world in general has no problem taking idiots as leaders—look at Fudge. If anything, a stupid figurehead would be BETTER, because it would give Quirrelmort more control. The only thing I can see being a barrier here is if Harry had some obvious, crippling mental condition. That sort of thing, though, WOULD have been obvious from a young age and as I’ve said, in that case he can tragically kill off Harry in such a way that Neville becomes the new posterboy. So again, whilst there is a risk here it is low, manageable and avoidable. I don’t think it’s enough to rule out this plan.
Your third argument. I’ve discussed the odds of success already, but I think the effort and time involved is an important point. You’re absolutely right that Voldemort could have taken the whole country over several times by now—he was winning when he disappeared, after all. The difference, though, is that before Voldemort would have had control over a broken, wretched country and a whole generation of wizards who had no goal except vengeance. On the other hand, if he fakes his own death at the eleventh hour, lets the goodies think they’ve won and then takes them over from the inside eleven years later, he now has control over a strong, united country AND their opposition. He’s unopposed because he controls both sides. I had only heard the term “super villain gambit” when I came up with this theory, but having read the article here on LW since I think you’ll be able to see the utility in this ploy. I think it’s worth ten extra years.
Finally, I should point out that I’m theorising he FAKED the Godric’s Hollow scene. If this is what happened then Voldemort wouldn’t have been hit by a rebounding curse that night and wouldn’t have lost his body or his power. Harry’s scar would have been intentionally created to mark him as the storybook hero everyone wanted and Harry would have been intentionally made a horcrux to in order to keep tabs on him. Also, in cannon horcruxes are close to indestructible: if this carries over in some form then it would be a good way to keep Harry safe.
To reiterate: I now doubt that this is what happened, because it looks like someone is trying to turn Harry evil.
Your second point, on the other hand, I have to disagree with prima facie. The wizarding world in general has no problem taking idiots as leaders—look at Fudge. If anything, a stupid figurehead would be BETTER, because it would give Quirrelmort more control.
Fudge isn’t particularly stupid, he’s just not particularly smart. He occupies a position of nominal power with significantly more competent people maneuvering around him, so he looks dim by comparison.
A not-very-bright figurehead would probably be better than a very clever one, but a legitimate dimwit, someone significantly less intelligent than average, not merely about average, would be very unlikely to make it into high office.
It’s possible that Voldemort faked the Godric’s hollow scene, but I seriously doubt it; real or fake it took too much time and resources for too little return for me to think it’s likely.
Imagine if Darth Vader had created the rebel alliance in order to funnel potential opponents into a harmless straw-opposition: he could let them attempt the occasional coup, always avoiding any real cost to himself and throw them the occasional minor victory to keep them on the hook.
According to the (admittedly non-canon) game The Force Unleashed, this is the original source of the Rebellion.
Something like this was done in the book ″Hair carpet” by German author Andreas Eschbach. Readworthy. I think it is generally wise to found the opposition by oneself. The government in 1984 did it as well.
You got downvoted for a request for an elaboration? I just don’t know what people are thinking sometimes with their downvotes.
I found it interesting because it was out of character for the usual Evil Dark Overlord, who is generally portrayed as wanting violence for the sake of violence and terror, or at least willing to match you death for death.
It’s almost as if his goal was to push Dumbledore’s side into doing/supporting something horrible. Having accomplished that with minimal losses, he stopped. I can see that as making a lot of strategic sense. It would solidify the resolve of his side—and Malfoy in particular—but wouldn’t get into an escalation that he was sure to lose, given the numbers on Dumbledore’s side.
Interesting also that much the same happened to Harry. Malfoy was after revenge against Hermione, not capitulation to blackmail from Harry. But from Harry’s perspective with respect to the magical government and Dumbledore, it would have been much the same result if Harry hadn’t paid off Malfoy. Instead of Narcissa tortured to death by the forces of “Good”, it would have been Hermione.
One thing I found very interesting—it was Voldemort who blinked first when families were targeted.
Dumbledore suggests a plausible explanation for this when he says “If my opponent had been Lucius, perhaps.” Suggests that Lucius is not a rational agent in the sense that he will make negative expected value moves for the sake of vengeance. Voldemort, however, is a rational agent in that sense.
Though I’m not sure Voldemort “blinked,” exactly. Voldemort probably didn’t care if the families of Death Eaters were killed in retaliation for things done to family members of the Order of the Phoenix. Instead, he made the following calculation: (1) I can afford to tell Lucius I will torture him to death (and maybe kill his baby boy) if he does anything stupid in retaliation for Narcissa’s death and (2) but if I go on killing family members of my opponents, my Death Eaters may rebel to protect their families, Dark Mark or no.
Be careful when describing negative-expected-value vengeance as irrational. “I will precommit to be the kind of person who takes vengeance, even after it’s too late for that to have positive expected value” is almost just a sub-case of “I one-box”.
Hence the ”...in the sense… …in that sense...” qualifiers. If you can suggest a better term, I might switch to using it, otherwise next time I’ll wave my arms even harder to show I’m tabooing my words.
It’s interesting in part because Harry is right that the behavior is unusual. Historically, the group that (1) is led by a strong leader who encourages personality cults, (2) doesn’t believe in the rule of law, and (3) resorts to violence at the slightest excuse is not the group that unilaterally ends dynamics like hostage taking and hostage killing.
They’re the only group that can unilaterally end it since the other side wasn’t doing those things to begin with.
As I understand the historical dynamic, there is a conflict and the status quo is that dependents are safe. One side (call them Blue) escalates by attacking dependents, breaking the status quo. The other side (call them Green) might not have chosen to break the prior status quo, but once it is broken, they decide to start attacking dependents. Green might even escalate further.
Historically, these types of conflicts seldom return to the prior status quo. Most frequently, a new (bloodier) status quo is reached, or one side wins and ends the conflict. Occasionally, Green does not escalate, or decides that the new status quo is unacceptable and unilaterally deescalates (which doesn’t always successfully return to the old status quo). What essentially never happens is Blue escalates, Green escalates, Blue unilaterally deescalates, old status quo returns.
In short, I notice I am confused by Dumbledore’s story of the safety of dependents at various times during the last war.
Just to make sure I understand, consider the following hypothetical account: Sam and I are having a nonviolent argument. I get furious and punch Sam. Sam punches me back. I apologize for having turned this into a violent interaction and promise not to do that anymore. Sam agrees not to do it anymore either. We return to our nonviolent argument.
Is that an example of the sort of situation you’re describing, which you claim essentially never happens?
If not, can you clarify what excludes it?
The historical assertion is in the context of group political conflict involving violence.
Apocryphally, the Mafia had a rule that they didn’t target families. Assuming this was true even in conflicts between families (and I don’t know this to be actually true), I’m saying that the family (Blue) that first broke that norm was not likely to be the family that unilaterally returns to the “don’t kill dependents” rule. Particularly if a lot of the unity of the Blue family is based on the strong personality of Blue’s leader.
(Mostly, I’m thinking of the Cold-War era internal conflicts between proxies of the United States and the USSR, especially in Latin America and Africa i.e. the Sandinistas. I’m not saying every conflict of that type escalated in the way I’m describing, just that the escalator basically never deescalated while the conflict continued).
Ah, gotcha. Cool, that makes sense… thanks for clarifying.
I don’t agree with your inferences about Voldemort’s intentions.
First, I tend to think that Lucius was in fact Imperioused, so his will to vengeance was not a concern. And the undesirability of an all out war from Dumbledore’s side was obvious—Dumbledore’s side had the numbers. In a Total War of attrition, Voldemort was bound to lose, as Quirrell spelled out in his speech.
His goal is a political one. He has the Great Leader view of politics, and wants all of Britain resolved to follow the Great Leader. How to achieve that? Attack magical Britain with a ruthless enemy, to make them more ruthless in kind, and more ready to follow a ruthless Great Leader. Then create his own Ruthless Leader to fill that position. Who better to fill that role than the one who defeats the first Dark Lord? Twice? And has been prophesied as his enemy? And then he uploads into Harry when Harry supposedly defeats him again.
Dumbledore got his power by defeating Grindelwald. Harrymort will get his power by defeating Voldemort.
If Lucius really was imperiused, why does his son think he sided with Voldemort deliberately?
Consistency bias?
I grant that it’s a good point. But that story sounds like just the kind of political justification the Death Eaters would tell their children. Whatever power Dumbledore has, has he really been that despotic? Particularly, in comparison to Voldemort?
Draco isn’t in a position to know first hand. He must have been just barely born when Narcissa was killed.
I often interpret on a narrative basis as much as a “factual” basis. I think Malfoy is being portrayed sympathetically, and I don’t think the “save us from Dumbledore” story holds much water. If the story had been that “Dumbledore is destroying the wizarding race by promoting Mudbloods”, then that would have been a credible ideology for a sympathetic Malfoy—one who was actually for something positive.
Also, I find Lucius’s story moderately credible
And since no one believes it anyway, why would he tell it to the Longbottoms, who certainly won’t believe it, unless it were true?
I expect at some point that the non-binding nature of his dark mark becomes a plot point.
This seems like an earnest speech. That he would speak to Voldemort “in the spirit of friendship”, and expect that to mean something to Voldemort, is another interesting bit of info that seems incongruous to the usual Dark Lord narrative.
There are all sorts of incongruities in the onstage actions of Voldemort and Malfoy, and the stories of what happened offstage. I’m leaning toward taking what Malfoy says here as the truth.
Exactly. But in your theory, Lucius isn’t a Death Eater, he’s an Imperius victim. So why would he do everything he could to raise his son to want to grow up to be a Death Eater?
Literally the very next sentence was
And I agree that it’s incongruous for Lucius to speak to Voldemort “in the spirit of friendship”, I just think it’s more incongruous with the Imperius narrative.
He wants him to grow up to be the leader of the Purebloods, which exactly the same thing as leader of the Death Eaters.
And how would that constitute evidence that he was not a willing Death Eater if everyone believes he is faking? Certainly he should never affirmatively say he was a willing Death Eater, but this little speech that no one believes amounts to evidence that he wasn’t a Death Eater to who? The speech does him absolutely no good.
In fact, I’d say the speech only harms him. The Longbottoms of the world won’t believe him, but those who sympathized with the Death Eaters, much of his natural power base, would likely be annoyed at the disavowal, even if they didn’t believe it either.
When a schemer says something that does him absolutely no good, a reasonable interpretation is that it is true.
As pointed out, he needed Lucius to draw Purebloods. First he asked. When Lucius declined, he spelled him. He forced compliance. Not so friendly, but the least abusive path that achieved his goal. That might count as friendly with a Flawless Instrument of Death.
I expect we get the backstory on Lucius filled in some day. Although I’m wondering if EY has made a major change in the plot. Seems like a lot of work went into the Draco character, but he seems like a soap opera character who hit it big in the movies, and was quickly written off the show.
The “in the spirit of friendship” thing makes no sense if Lucius was imperioused. It’s incongruous with cliche villainy, but I think it makes sense in context, as a way of saying “I do not bear a grudge against you for leading me into that disastrous war, but I will not be your follower anymore” (because a friend is not a follower). It’s almost a subtle insult.
And Lucius is a bit sympathetic, but he’s not THAT sympathetic. It’s pretty clear that he’s a power-hungry bigot. “Dumbledore is destroying the wizarding race by promoting Mudbloods” is probably closer to his real motivation for joining Voldemort, but “save us from Dumbledore” is a better message to broadcast publicly, since it has a chance of swaying non-blood purists.
This may, in fact, be partly a matter of what Draco chose to emphasize when talking to Harry. At one point, he thinks to himself that fear of the magic going away (because of those damn mudbloods!) is the reason people become Death Eaters, but he doesn’t say that to Harry, presumably because he knew Harry wouldn’t find that convincing.
A person without context would find Harry’s continued friendship with Draco after Draco tortured him unfathomable, and yet it was true. Dumbledore announced to Harry that he would be a well kept prisoner in Hogwarts. That too, requires context to appreciate. A great many things that Dumbledore has done require a lot of context for justification.
We don’t have the context of Malfoy’s and Voldemort’s relationship in the same way, and the friendship comment is hard to reconcile absent that context.
Harry was clear that he prefers a scientific civilization over a magical one, but I think he could respect someone who wanted to preserve a magical civilization if it was threatened with destruction.
I think we just don’t have enough of the back story to make definitive conclusions; our priors are slightly differently and we come up with different conclusion. I’m not the confident in my conclusions. I’m less confident in yours.
Fair point about context.
But I disagree with your last paragraph. Had Draco given the “preserve magic from the mudblood menace!” defense of the Death Eaters, Harry had fairly good reasons to think they were wrong about that, so it just makes them look murderously insane. But the “Dumbledore killed my mother” line actually made Harry stop and think for a second.
And even if Harry might have sympathized, Draco didn’t know that.
And I disagree with your disagreement, sir!
No, I think it just makes them look wrong about a factual matter.
That’s maybe the rational reaction, but it’s not necessarily how Harry would react. He fantasized about guillotining blood purists, remember?
I’d also reiterate what we know about Lucius’ characterization. He has a deluded view of the world (blood-purism), and he reacts to evidence against that view (the experiment performed by Harry and Draco, which Lucius learned about when Draco got veritaserum’d) by shouting lies! He also has put a great deal of effort into maintaining his power in the wizarding world, and also into grooming his son for a similar role.
In other words, he’s a power-hungry bigot. Exactly the sort of person who would follow Voldemort out of hated for mudbloods and then spin other justifications for public consumption. Also, I get the impression that very few people believe Lucius was imperious’d, and he tells the story not so that others will believe it, but for the sake of plausible deniability
But maybe our priors are just different, as you said.
“I’d also reiterate what we know about Lucius’ characterization. He has a deluded view of the world (blood-purism), and he reacts to evidence against that view (the experiment performed by Harry and Draco, which Lucius learned about when Draco got veritaserum’d) by shouting lies! -- But maybe our priors are just different, as you said.”
Consider Lucius’s, and Draco’s, priors. Namely, they do not actually have the priors to explain why the result of their experiment means what Harry says it means—not independent of Muggles, anyway, and possibly not independent of Harry. Without replicating all the experiments (or, at least a significant number) on different color peas or whatever, to arrive at a basic understanding of genetics (and an explanation for awkward questions like “why doesn’t skin color or height work that way? who says that, or something else entirely, isn’t a better model for magic?), the simpler explanation (to Lucius—and, honestly, to Draco, divorced of his complex motivations for wanting to stay in the Bayesian Conspiracy) is that Harry examined the data in advance and made up a theory to fit the numbers to what he wanted to convince Draco of.
P.S. Unless Veritaserum in HPMOR works similarly to how truth serum works in (of all things) The Hitchhiker’s Guide To The Galaxy, we can’t conclusively assume that Draco necessarily told Lucius any particular fact. What line of questioning leads to Lucius finding out about the experiment?
A good question to ask. Might he not be telling it for the benefit of Harrymort? I still don’t understand why he would do this, but at least Malfoy has a track record of saying confusing things to Harry. It could mean “I am no longer your follower” or “You need my support” or “I am the one in charge of your Death Eaters now, and don’t forget it” or even just “In case you don’t know, this is my official position at the moment.”
But even after Narcissa died, I don’t think Voldemort was facing a Total War against a united Magical Britain. It was the Death Eaters vs. the Order of the Phoenix, and what evidence we has indicates that the Order was losing, even when led by a more ruthless Dumbledore.
That’s what’s so puzzling here. This version of Voldemort isn’t stupid, but it still looks like he screwed up.
It’s possible he was simply too intelligent—trying to lose without appearing to try to lose, but still too brilliant to be defeated.
More likely it was his intention that things sit like that.
He ‘lost’ on purpose. But before he did, he taught Dumbledore to lose in the hostage and ransom thing.
Step 1 : gather the fearful and lead them by fear
Voldemort championed the old blood that felt threatened by muggleborn and was very cruel to them to keep them in line.
Step 2 : force most powerful opponents into taking actions contrary to their ideology
Voldemort probably did any number of nasty things to break lower rank ideologists and might have done an evil thing or two that did not break Dumbledore, but eventually he was successful.
Step 2a : keep a lid on things so they cannot resolve themselves through reasonable application of voilence
Voldemort killed Narcissa once he knew Dumbledore was conditioned to accept the blame and the conflict extending truce that came after.
Step 3 : watch for an opportunity to exit the stage, take it
Voldemort faked his death when he found circumstances that could make a death event of sufficient believabilty for the masses.
Step 4 : hide out under assumed identities while enemies and former subordinates continue to not resolve things either peaceably or voilently for as long as necessary
Voldemort is Jeffe or Quirrell or any number of other people for ten years. He might also have been technically dead for some or all of that time. That does not significantly alter the scenario.
Step 5 : gather tools and staff as opportunities present themselves
Voldemort has the Resurrection Stone, Bella, and who knows what all else.
Step 6 : watch for an opportunity to stage a coup over either side of now old conflict, take it
Voldemort may have multiple scenarios for returning to power. Right now he is playing king maker for Boy Who Lived.
Step 7 : smash opposing side of nearly meaningless conflict because they have been conditioned to fight entirely the wrong kind of war, unite as many factions as possible
Step 8 : dominate world
Step 9 : throw tasteful party with select guests and absolutely, positively, never, ever monologue
Downvoted for massive violation of Lucius’ Law.
Please elaborate.
From Ch. 24:
Your plan is unworkable, because the probability that everything needed for the plan to happen would happen is too low. HPMOR!Voldemort is not a fool, so he would not have planned an unworkable plan (and, as Hat and Cloak, advised Blaise Zambini not to try such plans). Therefore this is not Voldemort’s plan.
Fine. You accept that Voldemort did rise to power, yes? Let that be one plot that had however many “different things to happen” but worked. That is one plot with one payout that is collected without being dependent on other plots and covers step 1.
In step 2 his plot depends on his most idealistic enemies breaking from their ideals. That is 1 “different things to happen”. He maybe tries a lot of different time, and eventually the Aberforth Event occurs, so the plot progresses.
Step 2a is the same plot and includes another “different thing.” After he kills Narcissa, his formerly idealistic enemies must claim responsibility. He has conditioned them to do this in the way he has spread terror and treated them, so it does not come out of the blue, but it is the second “different thing” for that plot.
It works and he is rewarded with a conflict without escalation, where he can continue to amass power while his own side does not get out of control and his enemies become more reasonable and less idealistic, therefore easier to manipulate and less unpredictable. This second plot covers steps 2 and 2a. He could continue at this point as he had, building power for a faction, taking different steps or starting different plots.
The third plot has the goal of unity and only depends on two “different things.” The first is that he have an opportunity to step out of the game, the second is that he has an opportunity to step back in. Again, there is the throwing shit at the wall approach, here. He can set up situation after situation that might lead to an opportunity to step out or in, and take the ones that he expects to work best.
When this plot is completed, he is rewarded with control of a new third side in a two sided war. He can do what he wants with this new faction, execute any number of plots from this point forward. This covers steps 3, 4, & 5.
The fourth plot is what he is preparing for, but isn’t executing as far as I can tell, taking over the government. Whatever this depends on, you know he’s up to something and this is no worse an answer than many other reasonable answers.
I’m fairly certain that Voldemort is not planning a party, though. That was a joke.
Well, yes, if it was planned from the beginning. It could have been improvised. To summarize Percent_Carbon in a way that brings out the potential that the plan he explained was improvised… Step 1. Conquer Britain as Voldemort. Doesn’t work as well as hoped, Britain is divided, not united. Step 2. Use power to try to set up a situation that you think you can exploit later. Wait years before you see a good way to exploit it Step 3. See the way Harry Potter came out, see an opportunity to conquer a united Britain, and go for it
Probability is in the mind. If you’re that much better at chess than you opponent, you can execute excessively complicated traps just to amuse yourself, and still be quite certain of victory. If Riddle knew more and thought better than Dumbledore, enough so that he can model his reactions precisely (as he seems able to) then what seems like an unlikely plot may be to Riddle merely an entertaining diversion.
That said, I agree that Godric’s Hollow probably didn’t go as Riddle planned.
Doing stupid things to amuse yourself seems like exactly the opposite of everything Voldemort has ever done. If ever anyone has epitomized ruthless efficiency, he’s the guy.
Quirrell frequently brags about things he shouldn’t mention, things with massive blowback potential. He also obvious relishes outsmarting and dominating others.
I’m not just disagreeing for argument’s sake. Look at the plot that resulted in the three-way tie in the underwater Defense battle. Clearly the universe of this fic allows absurdly complex plots to work when the plotters are of a high enough level.
Quirrel himself noted that plans that contingent on uncontrollable events tend to fail. Dumbledore wasn’t counting on that plan working, as he said, “That’s why it’s important to have more than one plot going at once.” The plan that resulted in the three way tie succeeded largely due to luck.
It only looks complicated. Yes, it was not extremely probable that Blaise would be amongst the last few standing. But very quickly all teams raced towards an even score in a fairly predictable self-organizing way. So there weren’t really a lot of moving parts there, just one complicated system with fairly predictable behavior, and some complicated-looking plotting to get Blaise’s cooperation, and just a bit of luck that Blaise didn’t get knocked out earlier (helped by Blaise being mostly interested in survival instead of racking up points)
That does not match my model of canon Voldemort, and I assume that MoR pre-Harry Voldemort was very similar.
I expect Voldemort to kill/torture valuable minions because of impulses (“to amuse yourself”) even if it would harm his overall goals.
Why would MoR Voldemort be different pre-Harry or post-Harry?
“The Rule of Rationalist Fiction states thwat rationality is not magic.”
In other words, such a hypothesis about Voldemort’s plan is defensible only if there’s a better explanation for how he could pull it off than “he’s just that good.”
Granted, Voldemort also has access to magic. But based on what we know about how magic works in this universe, it seems unlikely that, even given magic, Voldemort could acquire the knowledge necessary to be confident of making such an excessively complicated plan work.
Chess is completely orderly. In chess, you don’t have to deal with unknown unknowns, or pieces getting moved around by chance, or your opponent inventing new pieces in the middle of the game, etc. Just because you can execute extremely complicated plans in chess doesn’t mean that the plausibility transfers to real life.
Considering that he was winning the war before making his untimely exit in the early 80s, this strategy seems overly complicated.
You seem to be doing the opposite than what the quote indicates, trying to find ways in which Voldemort supposedly benefitted, in order to present him as the person behind every ploy.
If Voldemort benefitted from his supposed defeat at the night of Godric’s Hollow, we’ve not yet seen how.
If Voldemort benefitted from the burning of Narcissa Malfoy, we’ve not yet seen how.
You are following the exact opposite process than the quote indicates. Which may be okay, after all it’s only one technique, not the ONLY possible technique, but nonetheless quoting it as an explanation for your reasoning seems misguided.
This line seems to have caused some confusion downthread. On Percent_Carbon’s view, t’s a very good explanation for the reasoning, in that it seems to have generated understanding of the reasoning.
Perhaps equivocating on ‘explanation’?
Well, I don’t know about “very good.” But it worked this time. I don’t think that was a good way to do what I wanted done, though. So I’ll probably not do that again.
Thanks for the defense, though.
Mostly agree with this comment, but it seems likely to me that HPMOR!Voldemort’s intentions in going to Godric’s Hollow were different than Canon!Voldemort’s, given that HPMOR!Voldemort is a lot smarter than Canon!Voldemort.
I don’t think similar reasoning applies to Narcissa’s death, because it’s less likely that Voldemort would have been able to foresee its effects.
I agree with this. For that, and also for other reasons, I assign less than 20% probability that Voldemort went to Godric’s Hollow for a purpose as simple as “attempt to kill baby Harry”.
Oh, but even Canon!Voldemort meant to make a Horcrux when he went to Godric’s Hollow (or so speculated Dumbledore in book 6, IIRC). So I think there must have been more to it than even that.
Canon!Dumbledore speculated that Voldemort was going to kill Harry, and then create his last Horcrux using that death—but killing Harry was his primary purpose for going there; the fact that Voldemort also meant to make the last Horcrux at the time was incidental.
If you need further clarification about what I believe, I don’t think HPMoR!Voldemort purposed to kill Harry at all that night—atleast not physically.
Seems to have worked, though. You understood. And if others wouldn’t have then you’ve explained it.
I understand you’re following false reasoning, so I don’t know what “seems to have worked”. I, for one, don’t believe that it was Voldemort who killed Narcissa Malfoy.
I said something. You understood what I meant. You explained it pretty clearly, too.
In that post, and I guess in the next one and maybe even in this one, I am advocating that those 9 steps are accurately Voldemort’s plan. But it is not important that I convince you, or anyone, that they are accurate. It is enough that I convince you to consider them. The theory’s own merits and flaws will determine its fate.
So, yes. “Seems to have worked.”
Respectfully, discussion and debate are not consider successful if all you do is cause the other person to understand your position. If no one’s position changes, something is wrong.
Again, my goal is not to convince you or anyone else.
My goal is to test the speculated scenario. I advocate for it not because I want to convince others, but because it doesn’t get much mileage on its own.
As it gets picked apart, I learn more about the the scenario itself, about the material it’s built on, and about the speculative process.
Respectfully, it is silly to assume that no one’s position is changing.
So Dumbledore was hiding behind a curtain, aced Voldemort, and carved a tasteful little scar into Harry’s forehead? Because that seems to be the closest thing to a conclusion one can draw from that method as applied to Godric’s Hollow.
I’d propose that he has a slightly different plan. I’m going to give you my pet theory here so hold onto your hats.
I think Quirrellmort probably decided at one point in the past that it would be way easier to take over magical Britain if everyone thought he’d already failed at doing so. I think he’s probably going for control of both sides. Imagine if Darth Vader had created the rebel alliance in order to funnel potential opponents into a harmless straw-opposition: he could let them attempt the occasional coup, always avoiding any real cost to himself and throw them the occasional minor victory to keep them on the hook.
To quote the chapter Contagious Lies:
That’s obviously not the same plan I’m talking about, but we can see that Quirrell has at least been thinking along similar lines to me. I can see a number of different ways he could have formulated this plan, but the simplest one seems to be:
Set up evil organisation and make an attempt at taking the country over. Allow everyone to gauge your intelligence from your actions, and to form the strongest alliance they are capable of forming against you. Everyone’s gauge of your intelligence will in fact be off by several points, since this isn’t really your big ploy—it’s actually a feint and you intend it to fail.
Fake your own defeat, simultaneously creating a (young, impressionable) hero for your opponents and removing yourself from all further suspicion, since almost everyone will think you’re dead.
Become a role model to the aforementioned young hero and mould him to your will. The kid is in the perfect position to take over the leadership of your opposition, so you now effectively have control of both major players in the game.
Win.
This is also foregrounded in Coordination Problems 2 and 3. Quirrell wants Harry to bind the population together under him and Harry makes a short speech about the dangers of group thinking. Quirrell’s reaction is one of anger—obviously he can’t have Harry breaking the monopoly that the Order of the Phoenix has on do-gooding, because that opens the field up for thousands of free-agent challengers to Quirrell’s power. It also mirrors Harry and Draco’s plan to play the two sides off against each other, except obviously Harry is aiming for world optimisation, not domination.
Finally, Dumbledore seems to think Voldemort is still alive, but he’s either pretending to have irrational justifications for this or he really does. I think it’s waaaay more likely that Dumbledore is just playing dumb, since he’s definitely smarter than he lets on, as evidenced by his and Snape’s big discussion about the Bellatrix thing, but I’m not entirely sure how much Dumbly knows for sure. Quirrell knows Dumbledore acts as though he thinks Voldemort is still alive. The real wildcard is Harry, because Quirrell probably wasn’t expecting him to be such a major agent in all this, he’s almost certainly playing Xanatos chess at this point trying to keep ahead of Harry and keep his plan alive.
Or at least that’s my theory.
If I were in Voldemort’s shoes I definitely wouldn’t want to stake decades of work on a plan that could be derailed by my “hero” simply dying in an accident, and that’s disregarding all the ways he could fail to be properly impressionable.
I don’t think either of those represent a big risk to him. Consider that he knows this particular child will be under Dumbledore’s constant care, and that Voldemort himself will always be available to step in and rescue the kid if there’s a risk of him dying early. Obviously that doesn’t lower the risk to zero, but it’s still a big reduction. Also, remember that during the “grooming” phase of this plan it’ll be an eleven-year-old against the most intelligent and insidious wizard in history: given what Voldemort did to Bellatrix it seems like he would be very confident of successfully being able to brainwash Harry.
So, the risk of Harry dying or being unbrainwashable seems low, but it also pays to consider that either contingency wouldn’t stop the plan in it’s tracks. If Harry dies (or has to be killed because he can’t be brainwashed) there are a whole battalion of potential replacements who could emerge as the new posterboy for good—Neville being clearly at the top of the list. Harry is the >best< choice, but he isn’t the only one.
I’ve actually cooled a little on this theory since the latest arc began because I think someone is clearly trying to turn Harry evil (see my theory from earlier in the thread). That said, I still think this would be a workable plan for attaining uncontested dark lordship.
So, basically the plot of 1984.
Oh is THAT the plot of 1984? I never bothered to read it. In that case, yes, I guess.
Did I really just get down-voted for my taste in literature? I’m sure it’s a very nice book and that you enjoyed it very much, Mr Down-voter, but I don’t see how there’s anything objectionable about it not appealing to me. I’ve been told before that I spend /too much/ time reading the classics so don’t worry that my intellectual growth has suffered. I prefer Huxley to Orwell, although the former seems to have been a little touched, judging from his correspondences.
I know I’m new to the forum and all that, but I feel like that shouldn’t be what the voting system is for. Surely in most circumstances up- and down- votes would be better used to indicate how /rational/ you think a post is, not how close to your own opinion it is. People’s karma score shouldn’t suffer just because their opinions differ from the majority. Anyway, regardless of what the actual forum guidelines are you’ll only see me disliking arguments that display poor logic. On that note, consider that down-vote down-voted.
Downvoted the grandparent comment just now for pointlessness (I wasn’t the original offender). It adds nothing to the discussion, and I generally downvote comments that I’d rather didn’t exist.
I retract my criticism, I hadn’t considered that utility.
Voldemort won’t always be able to step in and rescue him, he doesn’t have him under constant tabs, it’s not like he’d instantly know if something bad were about to happen to him.
There are other ways aside from being oppositional that Harry could have failed to be properly impressionable. For instance, he could have been extremely stupid (there would be no way to tell when he was a baby,) and it would have been impossible to set him up as a figurehead leader because he was too obviously incompetent.
In Voldemort’s place, I would never attempt a plan like this, because the odds of success, even at their best, do not justify sinking a couple of decades into its execution. Given the same amount of time, I’d expect him to be able to take over the country several times over. I could probably take over the country several times over in his place, given the same level of power along with an outside perspective on wizarding society, and I don’t think I’m as good at plotting as Quirrelmort.
I’m betting on what happened with Harry not being intentional, because, for all the ways that one can postulate that the events that followed benefited Quirrelmort, I think the fact that he lost his body, much of his power, all his servants, and a decade of time, should shift our prior considerably away from whatever happened that night being deliberate.
Again, I’ve cooled on this theory myself, so I think I probably agree with you in the broad sense that I don’t think this is exactly what happened. I’m still going to argue a few of the points you made though, because if we share an opinion but disagree on the justifications for it I still think that’s a disagreement we should try to heal. Better to be justified but coincidentally wrong than unjustified but coincidentally right, right?
Anyway, I agree with your first point. remember that I said:
So what I’m saying is, having Voldemort hanging around in the wings won’t save you from everything, but it certainly won’t hurt your chances of survival. There’s nothing to say Voldemort hasn’t done little things to increase Harry’s survival like magically lower the risk of lightning strikes in Surrey. Wizards are more durable than muggles AND Harry also has Dumbledore’s protection AND there’s no absolute reason Voldemort has to use /Harry/ as his posterboy for good—he’s just the best available choice. So I don’t think the risk of Harry dying unexpectedly is great enough to invalidate this plan, although I do agree that it would be inconvenient if it happened.
Your second point, on the other hand, I have to disagree with prima facie. The wizarding world in general has no problem taking idiots as leaders—look at Fudge. If anything, a stupid figurehead would be BETTER, because it would give Quirrelmort more control. The only thing I can see being a barrier here is if Harry had some obvious, crippling mental condition. That sort of thing, though, WOULD have been obvious from a young age and as I’ve said, in that case he can tragically kill off Harry in such a way that Neville becomes the new posterboy. So again, whilst there is a risk here it is low, manageable and avoidable. I don’t think it’s enough to rule out this plan.
Your third argument. I’ve discussed the odds of success already, but I think the effort and time involved is an important point. You’re absolutely right that Voldemort could have taken the whole country over several times by now—he was winning when he disappeared, after all. The difference, though, is that before Voldemort would have had control over a broken, wretched country and a whole generation of wizards who had no goal except vengeance. On the other hand, if he fakes his own death at the eleventh hour, lets the goodies think they’ve won and then takes them over from the inside eleven years later, he now has control over a strong, united country AND their opposition. He’s unopposed because he controls both sides. I had only heard the term “super villain gambit” when I came up with this theory, but having read the article here on LW since I think you’ll be able to see the utility in this ploy. I think it’s worth ten extra years.
Finally, I should point out that I’m theorising he FAKED the Godric’s Hollow scene. If this is what happened then Voldemort wouldn’t have been hit by a rebounding curse that night and wouldn’t have lost his body or his power. Harry’s scar would have been intentionally created to mark him as the storybook hero everyone wanted and Harry would have been intentionally made a horcrux to in order to keep tabs on him. Also, in cannon horcruxes are close to indestructible: if this carries over in some form then it would be a good way to keep Harry safe.
To reiterate: I now doubt that this is what happened, because it looks like someone is trying to turn Harry evil.
Fudge isn’t particularly stupid, he’s just not particularly smart. He occupies a position of nominal power with significantly more competent people maneuvering around him, so he looks dim by comparison.
A not-very-bright figurehead would probably be better than a very clever one, but a legitimate dimwit, someone significantly less intelligent than average, not merely about average, would be very unlikely to make it into high office.
It’s possible that Voldemort faked the Godric’s hollow scene, but I seriously doubt it; real or fake it took too much time and resources for too little return for me to think it’s likely.
According to the (admittedly non-canon) game The Force Unleashed, this is the original source of the Rebellion.
Something like this was done in the book ″Hair carpet” by German author Andreas Eschbach. Readworthy. I think it is generally wise to found the opposition by oneself. The government in 1984 did it as well.
Care to elaborate? ‘Interesting’ is a word with many connotations.
You got downvoted for a request for an elaboration? I just don’t know what people are thinking sometimes with their downvotes.
I found it interesting because it was out of character for the usual Evil Dark Overlord, who is generally portrayed as wanting violence for the sake of violence and terror, or at least willing to match you death for death.
It’s almost as if his goal was to push Dumbledore’s side into doing/supporting something horrible. Having accomplished that with minimal losses, he stopped. I can see that as making a lot of strategic sense. It would solidify the resolve of his side—and Malfoy in particular—but wouldn’t get into an escalation that he was sure to lose, given the numbers on Dumbledore’s side.
Interesting also that much the same happened to Harry. Malfoy was after revenge against Hermione, not capitulation to blackmail from Harry. But from Harry’s perspective with respect to the magical government and Dumbledore, it would have been much the same result if Harry hadn’t paid off Malfoy. Instead of Narcissa tortured to death by the forces of “Good”, it would have been Hermione.