1

Don't know the policy for spoilers, so spoilers ahead!

At first, it seems that Snape defeated Dumbledore by killing him, so by killing Snape Voldemort became the next owner. But it is later shown that the wand has a more abstract notion of 'defeating': while Snape killed Dumbledore, it was Draco who first disarmed him, and thus defeated him.

Yet the only reason why Draco disarmed him in the first place was because he was already severely weakened, by taking Voldemort's potion. By the wand's own reasoning, Voldemort defeated him. Furthermore, Snape killed Dumbledore because of an agreement they had earlier, based on the fact that Dumbledore was going to die anyway. And why was he going to die? Because he fell for a deadly trap involving a cursed ring placed by, you know it, Voldemort.

Is there a way to reconcile these events with what we are told about how the owner of the Elder Wand is determined?

Improve this question
3
  • 1
    Yes, the notion of defeating is more loose, but it seems pretty clear from the books that ownership is transferred after actual dueling or other kinds of physical violence (since the original brother was stabbed I think?). More directly and immediately causing death or defeat. Not indirect actions.
    – Alarion
    Commented Dec 17, 2016 at 7:22
  • 3
    Dumbledore willingly chose to drink the potion (mostly). Voldemort had very little to do with it.
    – TGnat
    Commented Dec 17, 2016 at 14:27
  • 3
    Disarming someone doesn't seem like an abstract notion to me. Setting a trap for someone isn't the same thing as defeating them in direct combat.
    – Harry Johnston
    Commented Dec 18, 2016 at 2:11

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
4

Voldemort didn't defeat Dumbledore with his potion.

Albus chose to drink the potion of his own accord; it's not like Voldemort forced him to. This is like when Snape kills him - he does it because Dumbledore wants him to. This is not defeating.

It was only when Draco defeated Dumbledore by disarming him, so that Albus was disarmed involuntarily, that the ownership changed.

Improve this answer
1
  • Nobody talked about the potion, that's irrelevant. We're talking about Voldemort being the master of Malfoy, and placing the ring as a trap. Not the same thing - and the potion didn't have an actual hand in his death anyway.
    – Gouvernathor
    Commented Jan 29, 2023 at 22:59
0

By the wand's own reasoning, Voldemort defeated him.

No, that's not true. Or, we have no reason to believe it to be true.

The wand has an expanded vision of "defeat", which enables A to defeat B, without killing B, by (A) launching a defeating but non-deadly curse. There is no reason to believe this extends as far as including other people than A, not launching a curse themself and ending up defeating B.

As for the ring, that's a very indirect vision of causality. If someone suffers a very painful injury and someone kills them to shorten their suffering (as in Starship Troopers for example), the painful injury is not the cause of death. There is again no reason to believe the moral reasoning causing the killing curse to be used, would be considered by the wand to be the source of defeat. There is no example (that I know of) of such an indirect defeat in the history of the Elder Wand.

The wand includes defeats due to lesser curses or causing less serious consequences, but not indirect defeats.

Improve this answer

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.