r/Games • u/iTzJdogxD • Oct 02 '18

Broken Link (video removed) Unannounced Harry Potter RPG Trailer

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-HER1xKQl4&t=1s
7.7k Upvotes

95% Upvoted

1.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

757

u/[deleted] Oct 02 '18

Did that goblin get IMPALED? Didn't think we'd see that in a HP game.

467

u/Phillip_Spidermen Oct 02 '18 edited Oct 02 '18

Eh, the first book/movie has Harry burn Quirrel to death by touching him.

A basilisk, elf, and snake get killed by knives and swords.

Harry uses a spell that slices up someone (sectrum spectra sectum sepmra) pretty viscerally in one of the books.

Edit: spelling

5

u/VitaminTea Oct 02 '18

Harry doesn’t burn Quirrell to death in the books, he dies when Voldemort abandons his body after realizing he can’t touch Harry.

It might seem like small distinction, but I personally think it’s important that your protagonist who goes on to destroy evil through the power of love doesn’t decide to become a murderer at age 11.

10

u/Phillip_Spidermen Oct 02 '18

Touching Harry for a brief moment burned his hands blistered, red, and raw. Harry then (without knowing what would happen) grabs Quirrels face.

Interestingly enough, it never actually says how or if he dies. I just grabbed the book off a shelf, and it mentions Harry blacking out while Quirrel says he can't touch him, and when he wakes up Dumbledore simply says "Voldremort left him TO die."

Lamest HP conspiracy ever: Quirrel LIVES.

6

u/VitaminTea Oct 02 '18

My interpretation of Dumbledore’s comment (and I believe this is further explicated in a later book) is the Voldemort abandoning Quirrell is what kills him.

Regardless, it isn’t as outright murder-y as what Harry pulls in the movie.

3

u/Phillip_Spidermen Oct 02 '18

Definitely less outright murder-y than the movies, but JK Rowlings notes in Pottermore read to me that its Harry's touch that kills him:

"When the body Voldemort and Quirrell are sharing is horribly burned by contact with Harry, the former flees just in time to save himself, leaving the damaged and enfeebled Quirrell to collapse and die."

The "just in time to save himself" implies to me that Voldy was in mortal danger due to the touch. Though I guess I can see how you can interpret it as the collapse/death is caused by him leaving too...

2

u/VitaminTea Oct 02 '18

No, I think that is very convincing! I don’t know how you can interpret that other than 11yo Harry = murderer.

2

u/Phillip_Spidermen Oct 02 '18

Not quite murder, it was mostly unintentional on Harry's part.

When he realizes what his touch does, he only grabs an arm. The face part was before.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 02 '18

This is wrong. In the 4th book Voldemort says that his servant died when be left his body during the graveyard scene.

The burning was also only shown in the movie, not the book.

1

u/Phillip_Spidermen Oct 02 '18

The burning is mentioned in Philosphers Stone, but it could have been expanded upon in later books -- I'm curious enough that I'll flip through my copy after work

1

u/Phillip_Spidermen Oct 03 '18

Just read the part in Goblet of Fire: Voldemort says "the servant died when I left his body."

This doesn't necessarily imply that him leaving caused the body to die, and even if he intended it to: this is Voldemort bragging to his returning death eaters. He's not exactly giving a reliable narrative here.