That's right. He did, however, kill his father, so I'm not sure that the fact he never killed his mother is too much to his credit.

Are we to take the attitude kill or be killed, or should we be noble and spare life even if what we are sparing is rooted with the dark arts and evil?

Well now - remember that even a non-magic or non-dark creature could lead to the same kill-or-be-killed situation. Dragons, hippogriffs and such are not Dark creatures, but if riled and attacking a wizard, he or she may very well have to (try to) kil lthe creature lest they die themselves. Same with non-magic animals like tigers and bears, if you get on the wrong end of those claws you will either have to defend yourself however possible or face the possibility of becoming food.

That said - I don't think we should also go out hunting supposedly Dark creatures for the sake of eradicating "Dark Magic" If an otherwise Dark creature has found its niche in teh world and is surviving without resorting to Dark urges (or being controlled to do so) the we should "let sleeping dogs lie" as it were.

Following this though vein, can a Dark creature be redeemed? If Mr Potter had been able to talk to the Basilisk without Voldemort's interferance, could the creature have been redeemed. It lasted for who knows how long by being left alone and hunting vermin under the school, so could a good wizard redeem and otherwise Dark creature?

-K-

That's right. He did, however, kill his father, so I'm not sure that the fact he never killed his mother is too much to his credit. [/b][/quote]
Too much.

But didn't we just say the same thing about voldemort- that dark magic took over his soul, and his need for the dark arts eventually posessed him. If that is the same way that dark creatures are, isn't it fundamentally the same situation? So, if we need to get rid of dark wizards, should we also go dark creature hunting? Or if we hope that there is good in dark wizards and witches, should we try to avoid killing creatures?

*kirstie writes down what the teacher is saying*

if we see a dark wizard, should we wait for them to attack first? or should we just kill them? wouldn't that make us murderers?

ok cool thanks for clearing that up professor. i just got a bit confused over some of the earlier posts, but i undertand now

Would you say we should attack a dark creature on sight, then, professor?

*Nadia hears patiently at everything said and finally raise her hand.*

I beg to differ, Professor, I don't think we have as much choice as a dark creature or a common creature when it comes to survival. Because I'm still standing by my theory that it's necessary for their survival to make us suffer; it's what they feed of:

Think that if this dark creatures are an extension of a negative feeling is because there's certain necessity for them to do so. The most logical reason is that they feed of the negativity they produce, so they need it, to make us dispair, fear and be miserable, to survive -- the same a bear would do, the noble animal. Hence and as they are not doing it *out of nastiness*, because then they are feeding, their doings can't be *morally* wrong, can they? They can't be *dark*!

Moreover, the Kelpie and Pogrebin are both *demons*, and without doubt: dark creatures, they both actually feed of humans and other living creatures' flesh and blood. I think the concept of a dark creature is hypocritical on our part. True, I'm not waiting still while one is chasing after me, but neither I would for a wild tiger.

And, something else; why would we consider Banshee a dark creature without consider Mandrakes the same; they both kill when speaking and probably have no power over it. (The same with the Basilisk? I can't tell...)

I say we have as much choice as a common, or magical or dark creature because we are no saint either; we kill to survive, we feed of meat and the lives of many indefense creatures; we are hungry of power and facilities since the day we are born. We were born as dark as the worst dark creature.


Oh and Treamayne, if the dark creatures having no control over their doing is enough of a cathegory to be called dark creature then so makes the people under the Imperio, you say? They don't have control over their actions then, dark or not. Again, I say, there's no such a thing as a dark creature.

The same with dark objects the only time when I'm admitting to anyone something is dark is how they are made, like *what instruments* were needed to give life to the creature.

And, well, if I might, pardon the lateness; the reason I think that made Tom Riddle became dark was dispair. The same with everyother dark peer around there; only despair can drive you to fight the world that way, not to fear risking everything else. And I think, if driven to the situation that calls for it, everyone of us would make the choice of darkness, if desperate enough; it's on our very nature to choice oneself over the others.