Voldemort

[ravenclaw1997]

Do you think Voldemort remembers living off Quirrell and how Snape tried to prevent him from getting the stone?
I would say he probably remembers it, but that doesn't explain why he doesn't get all ticked off at Snape when he comes back. He was aware of everything at the time of SS, since he could tell Quirrell what to do, but if he remembered Snape trying to stop him, don't you think he would have killed him on the spot as soon as he returned and saw Snape again?

And, if he does, do you think he gave Snape a hard time when he came back in Goblet of Fire?
Well, Snape isn't killed, so my guess would be no.

Did Voldemort question Snape's loyalty because of his actions toward Quirrell in Sorcerer’s Stone?
I would if I were him, but again, he doesn't immediately kill Snape, so he might not remember that part of SS.

[chaiteelatte]

Do you think Voldemort remembers living off Quirrell and how Snape tried to prevent him from getting the stone?

I have to disagree based on two pieces of evidence. When Bellatrix suspects Snape in HBP, she asks "Why did you stop the Dark Lord procuring the Sorcerer's Stone" (25, HBP). Only Snape and Dumbledore would have known that Snape was keeping an eye on Quirrell, but somehow Bellatrix found out. I suppose a possible explanation for this would be that Bellatrix was told by Draco, but I doubt it. Snape tells Bellatrix, "Do you really think that the Dark Lord has not asked me each and every one of those questions?" (26, HBP, emphasis mine), showing us that Voldemort has enough knowledge to interrogate him on it. The most conclusive evidence that Voldemort remembers his stint in Quirrell's head is his speech to the Death Eaters in GoF in which he details his time in Quirrell's body... so you know... he remembers it (654, GoF).

And, if he does, do you think he gave Snape a hard time when he came back in Goblet of Fire?

Absolutely! We saw how he treated the rest who "abandoned" him after his death, and the fact that Snape did not respond immediately to the Dark Mark was equally damning. But Snape was the only man Voldemort had close to Dumbledore, so he could not afford to kill him. I would think that he would have been tortured upon arrival and heavily questioned by Voldemort, but in the end Voldemort still had to use him. Snape was right in saying that, had he actually been loyal to Voldemort, the best course of action would have been to stay away an extra hour to secure his position with Dumbledore and I think Voldemort knew that.

Did Voldemort question Snape's loyalty because of his actions toward Quirrell in Sorcerer’s Stone?

I don't think Voldemort trusted anyone, at least not in the way you or I would trust someone. Voldemort was just so assured of his power and influence over his Death Eaters, that he "trusted" them not to betray him. In the case of Snape, I think that he believed so strongly in his ability as a Legilimens (for, as we know, he has been adept at controlling people even when he used only untrained magic) that he did not think that Snape could possibly deceive him. If he had any doubt of Snape's loyalty, I still don't think Voldemort considered him a threat. We saw how he responded in utter disbelief that his Horcruxes has been found because he thought their defense was impenetrable - a principle I believe he felt similarly regarding his relationship with his Death Eaters. He believed so strongly in his own power that he did not fear a possible spy. Which brings me to my last point: as usual, he underestimated the motivation of love because he had never had it himself. As Slughorn said in HBP, obsessive love is one of the most dangerous things in the world. Voldemort never learned that lesson and so he did not recognize Snape's obsessive love nor question his loyalties because of it.

Finally, I hope Voldemort remembers his time in Quirrell's head because I have a pretty humorous drabble kicking around about Fred and George nailing him with snowballs through the turban at the beginning of chapter 12.

[hpjunkie09]

I'm starting a new fic, and it involves Voldemort having a child. So, naturally, I have a couple of questions

1.) The way I'm writing it, Voldemort decided to have a child as a different means of ensuring his immortality. He's not capable of loving anyone, so I'm wondering, what would he look for in the potential mother of his child?

2.) Would Voldemort have put any measures in to ensure that his kid was taken care of, in case anything happened to him? I find this unlikely, as he didn't plan to be taken down by a 1 year old, but I wanted to know what y'all think.

Thanks very much!

[Sapphire at Dawn]

Hmm. I don't really see how having a child ensure's his imortality. It ensures his genes are passed on, but that's not what Voldemort wants. He literally wants to live forever. I personallly don't think Voldemort would see the need of a child. He doesn't think much of underage wizards, and I think he'd certainly see the child as a potential threat when it grew up. What if it decided it wanted to overthrow him? I think Voldemort would see a child as unnecessary, and too much of a risk.

Sarah x

[Tim the Enchanter]

How well do you think Voldemort understands the Muggle world? I believe that given his self-hating disdain for Muggles, he would consider them beneath his attention and not worth the effort of investigating. What are you opinions on this matter?

The reason why I ask is that I am planning a post-Voldy wins scenario in which he moves against the Muggle world. Due to his ignorance of Muggle politics however, his attempts to Imperiuse certain heads of state backfires because said politicians do not have unilateral powers like the Minister for Magic, and the strange demands of the Imperiused Muggle leaders arouses suspicion. In another blunder, Voldemort casts the Imperius curse on Mikhail Gorbachev instead of Boris Yeltsin, since he was unaware of the fact that the USSR had collapsed several years earlier.

Does this sound plausible?

Tim the Enchanter

[Inverarity]

The reason why I ask is that I am planning a post-Voldy wins scenario in which he moves against the Muggle world. Due to his ignorance of Muggle politics however, his attempts to Imperiuse certain heads of state backfires because said politicians do not have unilateral powers like the Minister for Magic, and the strange demands of the Imperiused Muggle leaders arouses suspicion. In another blunder, Voldemort casts the Imperius curse on Mikhail Gorbachev instead of Boris Yeltsin, since he was unaware of the fact that the USSR had collapsed several years earlier.

Does this sound plausible?

I think it's plausible that Voldemort doesn't know much about the Muggle world beyond what he knew when he left it. I'm not sure the Minister for Magic does have unilateral powers (Rowling is very inconsistent on this), but I can see Voldemort arrogantly believing that he can just Imperius Muggle leaders to do what he likes, and Muggles will be too stupid to notice when a leader is acting bizarre and out of character. And he may well believe that Muggles are even more authoritarian than wizards, since to his way of thinking, they'd be crude brutes who only understand power. (That was certainly his experience of Muggles as a child.)

While Voldemort might not bother to update himself on the change in Russian government, I do think it would occur to him that the current leader might not be the same person who was in charge years ago.

[Maple_and_PheonixFeather]

I would say Voldemort's plans are just unnecessarily complicated, not well thought out. All of his plans in canon would have been much more successful if he had just kept things simple. For instance, in GoF he could have just had Fake Moody turn Harry's toothbrush or something into a Portkey to send him to the graveyard, avoiding all of the Triwizard Tournament nonsense. Or in DH, he could have just held the Weasley family hostage at the end of Fleur's Wedding and started taking body parts off every five minutes until Harry surrendered himself.

I guess he likes gestures (like Cyrano?)

But with every, as you say, unnecessarily complicated plan, he knows exactly what was going to happen when. The Moody thing was planned in advance, infiltrating the ministry was planned, the attack on Harry was planned. Everything had a course it would take before. Are his plans (is that word sounding funny to anyone yet?) a little over the top? Maybe. But he always knows what he is doing when.

And that last thing is just gruesome! (Yet I could see him doing it )

Things can be well planned out without being practical.

[Maple_and_PheonixFeather]

I suppose it could go either way. I think that he probably isn't overly aware of what's going on in the Muggle world because all he's ever cared about is ruling over them. I find it hard to believe that he wouldn't do his research before making a plan. All of his plans in the books are well thought out, so I think that he would have looked into who and what he'd have to do to implement a successful plan.

[Tim the Enchanter]

I find it hard to believe that he wouldn't do his research before making a plan. All of his plans in the books are well thought out, so I think that he would have looked into who and what he'd have to do to implement a successful plan.

I would say Voldemort's plans are just unnecessarily complicated, not well thought out. All of his plans in canon would have been much more successful if he had just kept things simple. For instance, in GoF he could have just had Fake Moody turn Harry's toothbrush or something into a Portkey to send him to the graveyard, avoiding all of the Triwizard Tournament nonsense. Or in DH, he could have just held the Weasley family hostage at the end of Fleur's Wedding and started taking body parts off every five minutes until Harry surrendered himself.

Tim the Enchanter

[welshdevondragon]

I was wondering- how good do you think Voldie's knowledge of human psychology would be? I don't mean Freud etc but just the basics of why people do the things they do. I mean he knows how to manipulate people and how to make them do the things he wants to do/ how to play on their fears and desires but I'd say his knowledge would end there. Like he wouldn't understand (or want to) Harry digging Dobby's grave by hand, or Hagrid crying over Aragog, simply because he's never had to/ seen the point in trying to understand things like that.

Does anyone disagree?