I believe that from Harry's final duel with Malfoy at Malfoy Manor until he dropped the Resurrection Stone in the Forbidden Forest, he had possession of all 3 Hallows and was thus the Master of Death. He had possession of the cloak and the stone (though he did not know it) for the entire book and then he disarmed Draco who was the master of the Elder Wand, thus passing its power to Harry. So this could explain him not dying at Gringottes and in the Room of Requirement and, to a point, his final confrontation with Voldemort. If someone would like to argue then comment on this... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 184.108.40.206 (talk • contribs).
- No real point in arguing; that's pretty much what happened. -- 03:37, September 26, 2009 (UTC)
Well what I mean is that Dumbledore was wrong in saying that the 3 Hallows together are not a weapon or something. What I'm saying is that the Hallows literally made someone the Master of Death in a way that Death can't touch them, not just because you do not fear death itself. So I think that the Hallows actually have the literal powers that Lovegood described. I'm the same author that started this page... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.127.116.11 (talk • contribs).
I think him not dying at Gringotts and Room of Requirement is something completely separate from the Hallows. That might have been out of sheer luck. Besides, harry couldn't have been Master Of Death because he wasn't using the Stone, and didn't have the wand on him, even though it was his. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 18.104.22.168 (talk • contribs).
Technically, the legend says that the possessor of the three Hallows would become the Master of Death so I don't think that the fact that Harry wasn't using the ring in the Gringotts and Room of Requirement scenes means that the ring still didn't count in being united with the Elder Wand and the Cloak of Invisibility. Also, I think that '22.214.171.124' is taking the Master of Death thing a little too seriously and literally. Dumbledore stated himself that the person to unite the Hallows would be the Master of Death i.e. the ownership of the three Hallows did not make the owner the Master of Death, but rather it would take a true Master of Death (someone who willingly accepts death as an inevitability) to unite the Hallows. It was Harry's own courage in the face of death that made him the Master of Death and worthy enough to unite the Hallows, not the other way around. One of the most ingenious methods in Rowling's writing is that she is able to create characters capable of relating to people in the real world, even if those characters come from an utterly fictitious world. Harry was not exceptionally good at magic, but his greatest attribute was his human capability to love and therefore brave the many dangers he faced in his life. Don't take the specific story of the Hallows too seriously, because that is not the key point. What Rowling was trying to say through Harry's Mastery of Death was something of a moral code to the readers; that we as human beings must learn to accept death as what is to come. That truly makes us Masters of our own deaths. Was that a little too philosophic and dark? Sorry! Let me know what you think on this topic.--Yin&Yang 13:16, October 1, 2009 (UTC)
This is 126.96.36.199, your answer philosophically makes sense to me and it si probably right. But I am still argueing about the "literal" powers of the Hallows, rather than there "philosophical" powers. Your point is correct in their symbolism on what human nature is and what man should do, I will agree with that. But in a literal sense, Harry did have "possession" of all the Hallows, or allegiance may be better which de facto means possessor. And by legend they should make you immune to death. I guess we can mix our opinions on the Hallows: philosophically the Hallows can only be joined by someone who knows death is a way of life, but also I think that thereby excepting death, fate will have it that you can secure the Hallows and death will reward you with immunity to him. So maybe you have to be good to get all 3, but then be rewarded after such an achievement. Also, what would be the purpose of the 3 brothers creating the Hallows and "giving" them such a legend that they didn't end up doing anything literally.
Now I'm not saying that I'm totally right about this, but it is possible that Harry's ownership of all three Hallows after the events in Malfoy Manor made him lucky enough to avoid any major blows or spells but still, I think that highly unlikely. Even if a Death Eater had cast a Killing Curse on Harry upon the latter's entering into Hogsmeade (in Book seven), Harry would have survived thanks to Voldemort's idiocy in thinking that taking Harry's blood into his own body would strengthen him. Remember that up until the end of Voldemort, Harry was basically immortal. I think you might be forgetting that Dumbledore himself said the term 'Master of Death' had been misconstrued by both himself and Grindelwald when they were young. His exact words were: "...for the legend said that the man who united all three objects [Deathly Hallows] would then be truly master of death, which we took to mean invincible." Key words: "took to mean invincible". In other words, Dumbledore had later realised that the Master of Death title was never real at all. It should be called, 'Master of Controlling your Own Attitude towards Death'. I think there must be some sort of magic that attracts a person who accepts death to the three Hallows, but other than that, there is no physical relation to death itself. Dumbledore had also mentioned that he thought it unlikely that the Tale of the Three Brothers was true in that the three Peverells had literally met Death (or the Grim Reaper) while travelling. He says that it was more likely that the Peverell's were just three gifted wizards capable of creating the three fabled objects of power that became known as the Deathly Hallows. Your question about the purpose of the legend being created is easily answered. It is sort of like a game of Chinese Whispers throughout wizarding history; no doubt the Resurrection Stone's name and legendary power to "raise" the dead created the 'Deathly Hallows' name. That's how all legends in the real world are created - by word of mouth. I'm talking of course in the Harry Potter universe's terms, you know that right? Please don't think I'm one of those fans who actually believes in Hogwarts, hahaha. Anyway, the actual Stone didn't really raise the dead, but merely caused almost solid apparitions of the dead to appear as long as the owner held it in their hand. I guess what I'm trying to say is that there is NOTHING in the wizarding world of J.K. Rowling that can create pure, infallible, guaranteed immortality, only a prolonging of life. The Elixir of Life must be drunk regularly from the Philosophers' Stone, Horcruxes must remain intact to keep the maker alive, and the Deathly Hallows don't prolong the owner's life at all. How's that? Have I covered everything?--Yin&Yang 02:56, October 2, 2009 (UTC)
- Lily's sacrifice protected Harry from Voldemort, but it did NOT protect him from his Death Eaters or other servants. The only reason Harry had the extra protection from them while at Privet Drive was because of Dumbledore. Dumbledore had cast the charm using the blood connection between Harry, Lily, and Petunia that made him safe while he lived there. However, that extra protection ONLY applied while he was in that house, and it broke when he left it for the last time at the start of book 7. - Nick O'Demus 04:18, October 2, 2009 (UTC)
Nick O'Demus, you raised a very good point. I have been wondering for sometime about the exact mechanics of Harry's own kind of Horcrux, Voldemort. You said in your last comment that Harry was ONLY immune to death at the hands of Voldemort, correct? That idea did cross my mind but I'm not entirely convinced that that is true. I know that Dumbledore had said to Snape that "...Voldemort must do it[kill Harry]. That is essential", but does that necessarily mean that Dumbledore was only referring to Harry's survival depending on whether Voldemort struck him or someone else? Perhaps Dumbledore knew that if Voldemort didn't murder Harry himself, he wouldn't believe that the job had not been done and would have continued to kill innocent people in his search for Harry? Maybe Dumbledore knew that the "essential" part was to make Voldemort believe he had won? That would explain why he didn't let Voldemort try and kill Harry during the Battle of the Department of Mysteries? Well in this case, Dumbledore had foreseen that Voldemort would encapsulate Nagini in that protective orb once he discovered Harry's involvement with his Horcruxes, and therefore would have probably known that he would only release the snake once he thought she was safe i.e. when Harry was seemingly killed. Now you might take this for semantics, but Dumbledore did say that while Voldemort lives, Harry cannot die which sounds to me to be a very clear statement that Voldemort had basically become a Horcrux for Harry where Harry could have been 'killed' by anyone and still return from limbo. I think this whole topic is very blurred and unclear, so we'd do better not to delve into it too deeply; unless of course you have outright proof that what you last said is right. By the way, sorry for the paragraph lenght, I have a tendency to over-write sometimes.--Yin&Yang 07:54, October 3, 2009 (UTC)
This is 188.8.131.52 again and I will not accept that everyone simply thinks that the Hallows do nothing other than make people realize that they are master's of there own death. When I referred to the Hallows being created for no reason if what you state is their power, I was referring to the story that brothers were very powerful and had created 3 powerful objects. What would the purpose or motive be for them to create such objects and not protect them from death. Also, how can you call it luck that he escaped what he did after the allegiance of the Elder Wand shifted to him. In Gringottes no one other than Voldemort had ever stuck into that place and lived. I'm sure Dumbledore could have if he wanted, but fore Harry and 2 other wizards that can be considered just above average. How could luck, so much luck, had given them life from that place?
To 184.108.40.206, I think you are thinking about this a little too hard and forgetting the more simple answers to your questions. I know that you weren't specifically talking about the Tale of the Three Brothers, but I added it in two comments ago for some reinforcement of the idea that legends and myths are often created by distorted retellings of a story. As for the specific motives of the Peverell Brothers for making the Hallows, then you'll have to ask J.K. Rowling. All that we can assume is that each of these ancestoral brothers sought to create some of the most powerful objects in wizarding history. Each of the objects had their own specific quality about them that probably reflect the personalities and desires of the creators. Antioch Peverell created the Elder Wand - the most powerful wand in existance. That is a sign that he may have been very power hungry and desired to become an unbeatable wizard. Who knows, maybe he would have been a conqueror had he not been murdered. Cadmus Peverell was said to create the Resurrection Stone because he wanted to commune with his dearly departed wife/lover. Although this doesn't tell a great deal about Cadmus's personality, it does explain the purpose of the Stone's creation. Finally, Ignotus Peverell produced the Cloak of Invisibility to apparently, according to Beedle the Bard, evade Death. Now if we accept Bard's story as fiction (in a fictional world, by the way), we can say that Ignotus may have been rather mischievous or possibly literally in hiding of someone. I'm not saying that you are wrong in your belief that the Hallows really grant someone immortality, because that is the mystery of the Deathly Hallows. The thing is, Rowling has admitted herself that she often uses Dumbledore as her main mode of explanation and Dumbledore, therefore Rowling, believes that the Deathly Hallows are NOT directly and literaly related to immortality. If you refuse to accept that as truth (even after I gave you direct quotes from the seventh book the last time I wrote to you) then that really is not my problem. I can only tell you what I know, not force you to agree. As for Harry entering, stealing from and escaping Gringotts, are you totally forgetting that Griphook, a Gringott's Goblin, had guided him as well as Ron and Hermione past every enchantment and obstacle in their way before breaching Bellatrix Lestrange's vault? Are you forgetting that only Goblins can open Gringott's vaults the way Griphook did, therefore allowing Harry to enter? Are you forgetting that Griphook, Ron, Hermione and even the blind dragon managed to escape safely without owning ANY of the Deathly Hallows? Without Griphook, Harry wouldn't have had a hope in hell in successfully stealing the Horcrux; Hallows or no Hallows.--Yin&Yang 06:56, October 4, 2009 (UTC)
- 220.127.116.11, you seem to be overlooking a few things.
- 1 - Ron and Hermione were also there when they escaped from Gringotts, Malfoy Manor, and the Room of Requirement, but neither of them were possessors of the Hallows or "Masters of Death" by that definition. Yet they still survived, and without permanent injury.
- 2 - The escapes from Gringotts and the Room of Requirement were no less narrow than their escapes from Godric's Hollow or the Battle over Little Whinging. But in both of those instances, Draco was still the master of the Elder Wand, and in the case of the Seven Potters, Harry had not been given the Snitch with the Resurrection Stone yet. But they still made very narrow escapes relatively unharmed.
- Nick O'Demus 12:35, October 4, 2009 (UTC)
My take is that JKR has done something very realistic in the Harry Potter series in over-determining important outcomes. We see it all the time in real life, but it usually goes unnoticed. Whenever we do something, there are usually several reasons for doing it. We may only be conscious of one logical reason, but there is an emotional reason that is usually even more powerful, and often there are several ways of justifying our actions politically, morally, pragmatically, by self-interest, etc. JKR herself has stated that there are no mathematical formulas, no guarantees, so we cannot simply say that it was the Hallows and they alone that saved Harry. Harry Potter is definitely 'lucky', but there are good reasons for that 'luck'. His mother's sacrifice, Dumbledore's protective charms, each deathly hallow individually, perhaps a multiplicative effect due to their being loyal to one owner. Voldemort's taking of his blood increases his 'luck' against him. Every time Harry allows himself to eavesdrop on Voldemort's thoughts at the cost of a severe headache, he gets 'luckier' through the increase in knowledge. The more Harry tries to save and protect others the more his 'luck' increases. He has a noticeable increase in 'luck' because of his fiercely stated loyalty to Dumbledore. His 'luck' increases by the honor he shows Dobby and Kreacher. Every time Harry saves the life of an enemy, or refuses to use an unforgivable curse his 'luck' increases. Meanwhile Voldemort makes mistake after mistake and in the end it is clear that he cannot win no matter how dark and 'powerful' he makes his magic. At Kings Cross station, Dumbledore still refuses to make a definitive prediction that might be interpreted as a guarantee, but it really doesn't take any prophetic ability to see the probable outcome at that point. DavidWallis 08:10, October 17, 2009 (UTC)