Cormac McLaggen as "bad Gryffindor"/Voldy's weaknesses as a villain

[hickengruendler]

No: HPFGUIDX 149021

Irene Mikhlin (as an answer for the question about the purpose of 
Cormac McLaggen's character):

> 2. The story needed a "bad" Gryffindor, as much as a
> "good" Slytherin or even more.
  
Hickengruendler:

While that's true, I have a hard time seeing Cormac as a bad 
Gryffindor. A jerkish Gryffindor certainly, but not bad in the closer 
sense of the word. I would argue that we have at least two or three 
Gryffindors, who more fulfill this part than McLaggen does, namely 
Wormtail (obviously), Percy and even Romilda Vane. The later two, 
while (as far as we can currently tell) of course not as evil as the 
mass-murderer Wormtail, have commited some pretty ambigous actions, 
like leaving your family and completely ignoring your mothers 
attempts to a make up and browing love Potion. Cormac certainly has a 
big mouth and loves ordering everybody around on the Quidditch pitch, 
but I still don't think that qualifies him as a "bad" Gryffindor.

Lupinlore:

"For that matter,
what counts as an object?  Do natural features?  How about making a
horcrux out of the River Thames? Or the North Sea?  Or a mystical
mountain in Wales?  Not only significant, but well-nigh
indestructible."

Hickengruendler:

Yes, but I suppose it's similarly difficult or impossible to make 
them into Horcruxes, not because they don't count as objects, but 
because it's probably much easier to put a part of your in an amulet 
than in a mountain or a river. I guess as long as it is possible to 
put a piece of your soul into an object, it's also possible to 
somehow destroy this piece of soul. After all, the diary as an object 
wasn't completely destroyed either, just Riddle's essence which lived 
in it.

Lupinlore:

Lupinlore, who agrees Wilhelm is in some ways to be pitied, although
he did precipitate the deaths of at least 12 million people, even if
you don't give him any responsibility for the indirect deaths from
WWI. But in deference to your point, would you take Pol Pot?

Hickengruendler, in a (promised) very short off-topic comment:
 
I would say that they are comparable in that their deeds and 
decisions costed the life of millions of people, but that in 
Wilhelm's case it was due to his short-sightedness and many ways 
naiveté (many people from many countries in that time thought it 
would be a short war without thinking about the consequences or even 
that they might fall victim to it), while Stalin and Hitler 
deliberatly planned to kill millions of people.

Hickengruendler