During his years in hiding, when no one came to help Voldemort, none of his Horcruxes actively helped him. The fact is, the Slytherin Locket, the Hufflepuff Cup, and the Ravenclaw Diadem were hidden and would have stayed that way if no one had collected them.

The worst part is if Voldemort dies first, then most of the Horcruxes would have stayed hidden, given how well-protected they were. Hence Voldemort would remain dead. Am I missing something, or is there something very dumb about this?

Horcruxes only make sense if they can somehow intuit the master piece of soul has been destroyed or is in serious trouble. In that event, they should automatically activate. If not, this seems to be an unnecessary waste of time.

I am guessing, if Voldemort himself is the first to die, some knowledgeable wizard would have to perform the whole boiling-liquid-blood-of-enemy-servant procedure, like at the end of Goblet of Fire, and instead of a weakened Voldemort, throw in maybe the Hufflepuff Cup or the Ravenclaw Diadem.

closed as too localized by NominSim, Slytherincess, user1027 Jan 26 '13 at 16:58

This question is unlikely to help any future visitors; it is only relevant to a small geographic area, a specific moment in time, or an extraordinarily narrow situation that is not generally applicable to the worldwide audience of the internet. For help making this question more broadly applicable, visit the help center. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • 12
    Here is the "point" of a Horcrux: "You split your soul and hide part of it in an object outside the body. Then, even if one’s body is attacked or destroyed, one cannot die, for part of the soul remains earthbound and undamaged." As long as there are Horcruxes, Voldemort cannot die first. As well, Voldemort's Horcruxes kept him from dying when his Avada Kedavra curse rebounded and hit him, when Voldemort tried to kill Harry when Harry was a baby. The Horcruxes served their purpose exactly as they were supposed to. – Slytherincess Jan 26 '13 at 16:20
  • 2
    I can't see why this question is downvoted, closed. It is a perfectly valid question... – user3459110 Jun 2 '14 at 10:36
  • 2
    This isn't a good question, but it's on topic and "too localized" is no longer a valid close reason. – phantom42 Jun 6 '14 at 12:56

Voldemort's greatest wish was to live forever, so he created the horcruxes. With any one of them in tact, part of him still lived. Without a horcrux, he could not. That was the whole point of creating them.

You are correct in that a horcrux being forgotten and "lost" does nothing actively positive towards Voldemort's goal, but a forgotten/lost part of Voldemort living somewhere is better than the alternative.

  • 1
    wait a sec - Voldemort doesn't need a Horcrux to be "resurreted". As long as one exists (now matter if lost or not) he can't die, i.e., his soul can't pass from the world of the living to the dead. – mort Jan 27 '13 at 12:45
  • fair enough. restored is probably a better word choice. agree? – phantom42 Jan 27 '13 at 16:15
  • I think not being able to die (in the sense of the soul moving to the world of the dead or whatever) is the most accurate term. Voldemort didn't need a Horcrux to "restore" himself from the "less than a ghost" thing to a being with a more or less human body. – mort Jan 27 '13 at 16:38
  • @mort there is a world of dead? – user3459110 Jun 6 '14 at 13:01
  • The "afterlife", "heaven", "hell" or wherever a soul goes to after death. – mort Jun 6 '14 at 13:38

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