5

Couldn't a dark wizard just use Avada Kedavra on Fluffy without knowing its secret sleeping stimulus?

Why was Fluffy a big deal to Dumbledore and Voldemort?

  • 2
    Lots of large creatures (dragons, Blast-Ended Skrewts, and so on) have a degree of magical protection that means they can't be killed with Avada Kedavra. I would guess that Fluffy falls into this category. – alexwlchan Nov 12 '14 at 15:39
  • 4
    Large creatures. Humans are weak and spindly and susceptible to spells; dragons are big and scaly and robust. I can provide canon backup to the fact that large creatures have hardened resistance, but I'm only guessing in the case of Fluffy - hence the comment, not full answer. – alexwlchan Nov 12 '14 at 15:46
  • 6
    Humans have this invention called a gun, yet guard dogs are still very popular on farms, despite being vulnerable to guns. My guess is that it would deter anyone who didn't want to harm Fluffy, and would delay them if, say, Fluffy managed to tackle them. – Zibbobz Nov 12 '14 at 16:09
  • 2
    Also, weren't they largely unaware of the return of Voldemort and such by that point? I always thought that the stone was being protected more against thieves and the like, who may not want to (or even be able to summon the hatred necessary to) use such a terrible spell. – Nerrolken Nov 12 '14 at 17:28
  • 1
    why the heck was this downvoted? Excellent question! – DVK-on-Ahch-To Nov 13 '14 at 10:41
16

Magical creatures are shown to be resistant to various spells, curses, magic in general. We have basically 2 options when it comes to Fluffy:

  1. Fluffy is magically resistant to the killing curse

  2. Quirrell/Voldemort did not want to let people know that they had retrieved the stone.

Once the traps were set we can assume that people did not regularly walk through all the traps to double check as that would involve all of the teachers who laid traps to redo the traps, that instead they would look in see Fluffy was there and walk back out, however if Fluffy where to be dead, that's an instant giveaway that someone has broken in.

I'm more partial to number 1 because I believe we can assume a lot of the larger creatures are resistant to the killing curse. For example Giants are a legitimate threat when combating wizards, however if you could simply kill them with Avada Kedavra, they are actually just giant muggles and in essence worthless. Dragons are another creature I think we can safely assume as being killing curse resistant. (maybe not their eyes however)

Examples of magical creatures being resistant:

  1. While Hagrid was running from the death eaters in Half-blood Prince, we see him getting shot repeatedly by stunning spells and others and some bouncing off of him and others having no effect. They mention this being due to giant blood.

  2. Sirius specifically states in hp4 that Dragons are magic resistant, except for the eyes, (then he is cut off) otherwise he says he would have suggested what Krum did and shoot a curse into the dragon's eye.

  3. The blast ended skrewts, (I believe from book 4 as well) where shown to be HIGHLY magic resistant, (I believe the book mentions spells literally bouncing off) as the students had to use spells over and over again to subdue them when they were smaller to get them into cages. At the end of the book in the maze I believe (Harry?) encounters a fully grown skrewt and nothing he throws at it has any effect (essentially now completely magically immune).

  • 1
    These are obvious deductions. I want quotes from canon.. – Baby Yoda Nov 12 '14 at 15:46
  • 10
    In case like this, I think its unlikely you'll find any quotes from canon as fluffy is only in the first book and makes a minor appearance. Its highly unlikely that a quote from one of the later books will go back to talk about a specific character only in the first book just to explain a minor point about its resistance to magic. Although the logical deductions do follow that fluffy would be resistant to magic otherwise he wouldn't be a very good guard against any sufficiently powerful wizard. – Iankill Nov 12 '14 at 18:23
-1

I do not believe that any magical creatures are immune to the killing curse - just based on Barty Crouch Jnr.s claim (whilst impersonating Alastair Moody) that "there is no counter-curse, no blocking it." I think if Wizards noticed a magical creature was immune to the killing curse they would develop a way to harness that magical power, as they do with Dragon Hide gloves, for instance, and that Crouch would have mentioned it in the lesson at that point.

Presumably, if Fluffy were to die, he would die on top of the trap door, and block it quite effectively assuming that he/she is resistant to lesser magical spells, such as transfiguration or vanishing, even whilst dead.

  • The claim from Barty Crouch Jnr is more or less false because Harry Potter did resist to the killing curse; therefore there is a possibility of resisting to it. Furthermore, even without this example, we cannot say if this claim if for humans only or if it apply to every other creatures – SylvainL Nov 13 '14 at 11:21
  • 1
    While with Harry it is either a wand thing (twin cores / Elder wand ownership) or Lily's sacrifice, Dumbledore outright blocked one of Voldemort's killing curses (aimed at Harry) during their duel in the Ministry atrium (with the headless centaur's body iirc (which shattered it)) and Fawkes simply swallowed another one whole (granted he died from it, but still). So it CAN be blocked. Obviously, Barty lied. Shocking, an untrustworthy Death Eater... – BMWurm Nov 13 '14 at 13:15
  • barty didnt lie, his statement is being mis understood, counter-curse is essentially a reversal. and blocking it with magic such as protego(i think thats right) is also out of the question, however it is dodgeable, deflectable, and obviously it terminates if it hits some hard object so, non-magically blockable, he then goes on to say that the only person to survive/block a killing curse is Harry. he is talking purly about wizards here and not magical creatures. – Himarm Nov 13 '14 at 17:55
  • 1
    we also know that goblin armor is IMMUNE to all magic, killing curse included, which was why goblins were so effective at resisting wizards, a goblin in plate armor is essentially unkillable except through physical interaction. so should a wizard have a goblin armor chest piece on, as long as killing curses hit his chest he wont die. – Himarm Nov 13 '14 at 17:57
  • Himarm - yes, Barty was talking about Wizards at this point, and yes, he did say it was not blockable by counter-curses - which means it could be blocked by other magical means - however, my point is that if there were other magical means, he would have mentioned it at that point (as he is teaching the class Defence Against the Dark Arts, it would be in Syllabus). On the other hand, Goblin Armor is a good point - and it should have been covered in class! – binderbound Nov 13 '14 at 23:23
-4

of course avada kedavra could be used, but you just can't use an UNFORGIVABLE CURSE under the very nose of Albus Dumbledore unless you want to have a picnic with dementors for the rest of your life, unless, of course, you are He Who Must Not Be Named...that's why Fluffy did'nt have a problem from the killing curse

  • And of course Barty Crouch Junior was right, there IS no blocking it. He did mention the one one exception as being Harry, 'the exception sits in front of me', and in the Ministry, the stone statue wan't a living creature, so it could not have died, and Fawkes did die, so that reinforces that there is no blocking it. Barty Crouch junior doesn't make mistakes, do you know how many OWLs he got? AND he fooled everyone for the whole year too... – therealharry Nov 15 '14 at 18:58

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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