[HPforGrownups] Re: Hagrid

[Christopher Nehren]

No: HPFGUIDX 115904


On Tue, 2004-10-19 at 01:41 +0000, Carol wrote:
[snippy snip snip]
> Could a wizard die if an arrow from Hagrid's crossbow struck his heart?
[further snippage]

I don't believe that Hagrid's crossbow is a Muggle crossbow. I'm not
sure what that implies, but I don't believe that he'd use something
"ordinary" if he could employ a wizarding version. The wizarding version
would logically be enchanted, and thus able to deal physical damage to a
wizard or other magical being. Further, I doubt that a Muggle crossbow
would do much good against, say, a Centaur. They've probably long since
evolved -- either intrinsically or via magic -- to shrug off the effects
of Muggle crossbows. I imagine that many Muggles have tried to hunt /
exterminate them with crossbows and other mundane weaponry. It'd be
foolish to not develop an easily-maintainable defence against such
common implements.

> The reason I'm asking is that maybe Alastor Moody (the auror, not the
> imposter) killed the few DEs he couldn't subdue using something other
> than the Killing Curse (Avada Kedavra) despite the fact that Barty Sr.
> had okayed the use of Unforgiveable Curses by the aurors. (Young
> wizards have been killed during past Triwizard Tournaments. Surely
> they weren't AK'd by their opponents.) How, then, can witches and
> wizards be killed other than by an AK?

Let's set aside non-human magical life forms and their possible
aggregate byproducts (potions, powders, etc.) for the moment. I posit
that wizarding weapons are embued with magic just like the very people
who make them. This magic is necessary, IMO, to harm magical beings, as
they're resilient to mundane forms of physical harm. Young Harry, for
example, survived his house being destroyed around him (assuming that he
wasn't removed from said house before it was destroyed, but then that
raises the questions of who did so and how they did so while avoiding
the party responsible for destroying the house). And then there's
Quidditch: people get whacked in the back of the head but keep on
playing. I don't know about you, but I'd have fallen to a very unhappy
end if that happened to me. These points lead me to believe that there's
something "extra" about wizarding weaponry which enables said weaponry
to effect damage upon its targets.

Now, let's return to non-human magical life forms and their byproducts.
As Chancie noted in another reply to Carol's post, things like Beholders
Dementors pose great risk to wizards -- though both are highly magical
creatures. And there's dragons, unicorns, blast-ended skrewts, etc.
Sure, wizards do seem to be protected from the most mundane forms of
physical harm -- but there's also a great deal of other things out there
in the Wizarding World which are very capable of causing great harm. If
there weren't, the Weasleys' clock wouldn't need spots for "Mortal
Peril".

I hope that this has answered your question.

Best regards,
Christopher Nehren

-- 
I abhor a system designed for the "user", if that word is a coded
pejorative meaning "stupid and unsophisticated".  -- Ken Thompson
-
Unix is user friendly. However, it isn't idiot friendly.