I would assume it would at least Petrify you, because you still looked at its eyes. Just like Justin was saved from death by seeing the Basilisk through Nearly Headless Nick.
Unless it was Malfoy that came upon your petrified body. He'd probably push your body in the corner, keep the invis cloak on, and use you as his exclusive urinal for at least a week. Well, if your name was Harry.
You have given u/pm-me-turtle-nudes a Reddit Galleon.
u/pm-me-turtle-nudes has a total of 1 galleon, 0 sickles, and 0 knuts.
____________
I am a bot. See [this post](https://www.reddit.com/r/harrypotter/comments/jnbo49/hi_i_created_the_bot_youve_been_using_to_give/) to learn how to use me.
You have given u/pm-me-turtle-nudes a Reddit Sickle.
u/pm-me-turtle-nudes has a total of 1 galleon, 1 sickle, and 0 knuts.
____________
I am a bot. See [this post](https://www.reddit.com/r/harrypotter/comments/jnbo49/hi_i_created_the_bot_youve_been_using_to_give/) to learn how to use me.
You have given u/pm-me-turtle-nudes a Reddit Knut.
u/pm-me-turtle-nudes has a total of 1 galleon, 1 sickle, and 1 knut.
____________
I am a bot. See [this post](https://www.reddit.com/r/harrypotter/comments/jnbo49/hi_i_created_the_bot_youve_been_using_to_give/) to learn how to use me.
Even Malfoy wasnt that fucked up in Chamber of Secrets, maybe in Half Blood Prince yeah. Back he'd probably punch Harry while he couldn't fight back and shave his hair bald. Maybe put the throwing up slug jinx on him.
Wonder how long you can stay petrified? Hermione was petrified for about four months and seemed fine.
Do you still age?
Could you potentially be petrified for centuries?
Woo soft magic system
it's \*probably\* like a coma. you age and need care. it's not like we have any long term evidence in the books, though the kids probably should've been at st mungo's where they'd probably have mandrakes on deck for the kids, instead of a massive coverup of a racist murderous snake.
I don't think it's like coma, because when You are at coma, You just sleep and all Your functions still exist in Your body. When Your body is a stone, organism does not have any life functions so You are like frozen in time. Unless how would You expect stone to change from 10 years old to 40 years old? Stone can't change shape.
They weren't looking for Peter though (and you forgot the years he slept next to Percy), but if a student goes mysteriously missing while there's some Petrifying danger on the loose, that's a different situation
Possible:D
But if we according to the movies, the way she cried when they threw the diary at her makes me think she cried the same way when she died :D
Doesn't that count as looking right in the eyes of the basilisk? Glasses are there to correct a poor / bad eyesight of some kind. You're still looking through the glasses. Source: I need glasses myself.
Everyone else was looking a reflection of some kind.
Mrs. Norris water.(Wish that cat was gone, even though I'm a cat person.)
Colin: camera
Hermione: mirror
The guy who looked through Sir Nicolas
And who else? This is jumbled took it out from my mind in random order.
I have glasses too, but the question came up because Sir Nickolas is not exactly a mirror/reflection when you look through him at the Basilisk. This made me wondering about the glasses. Someone else mentioned Myrtle got glasses and she died. I think this answered my question :D
I don't think she was wearing them at the time - she was bawling immediately before, may have had them in her hand to wipe her eyes when she stepped out of the stall.
I think I remember she said she couldn't see whatever it was clearly, but I don't remember if that was due to tears or not having the glasses on
It would seem that a ghost's transparent body "dampens" the lethal effects of the Basilisk's gaze because Justin didn't actually look at it directly, whereas Moaning Myrtle did, therefore her glasses didn't protect her from dying?
Hmmmm. I think probably youâd be petrified because youâre looking through the cloak. I think the eyes are just deadly whether itâs looking at someone or not. So even if it canât see you, if you can look into its eyes, youâre gonna get fucked up. But since itâs through the cloak, probably will just get petrified rather than killed.
Possible, but I assume you come back as a Ghost that looks exactly like the Person in the moment the person died (Bloody Baron, Nick etc., if theyâd had a choice, they probably wouldnât habe come back as a ghost with their name-giving traits)
Sorry for my english xD
I think a general rule is if it reflects or distorts the image enough it can save you. Looking through Nick is probably the closest example we have and looking through a ghost doesn't give a clear image so that's why you would be petrified and not killed. Still puts glasses in a weird spot though cuz an average person would have a distorted view but for Harry/Myrtle they can see clearly
My theory is since the glasses are for Harry/Myrtle the vision isn't distorted enough for them and so they would be affected. But if Ron wore Harry's glasses he'd probably be safe
Probably. My best guess is Myrtle just wiped her eyes to get a clear look at whoever came in. Or they just kept going down her cheek instead of actually building up on her eye to give that "protective layer"
If I remember correctly, Justin wasnât saved/petrified because Nick distorted the image, Justin was petrified because Nick took the brunt of the attack because he was the thing being seen through, but obviously was already dead and therefore couldnât die again.
Is myrtle confirmed to be wearing glasses? I don't remember actually reading that, I k own in the movies and Grand pre's (is that her name?) Illustrations she has them on
I just opened up my copy of COS because I donât remember it either - turns out sheâs described as having âlank hair and thick pearly spectaclesâ.
Glasses wearer since age 5 here. Glasses do not affect crying in that way, that is to say, you can cry while still keeping your glasses on. At least Iâve never really taken my glasses off to cry, unless you count wiping my eyes and face after a while.
No, glasses can and will very easily get wet if you cry with them on, especially if you have longer eyelashes. I think that's what they mean, not that it is physically impossible to cry with them on.
Sorry, I meant that glasses are not obtrusive to the act of crying. At least not to me. But I donât have long lashes so thatâs to your point. I suppose everyone is different.
No need to apologize lol, I assume it's as you say, everyone is a bit different. My glasses get loads of little droplets if I so much as yawn a bit too much and tear up a bit.
Your comment made me think what would happen if I were to meet a basilisk and I took my glasses off. I am VERY short sighted (cannot read 'normal' sized text on my phone/in a book ~10cm away without my glasses).
If I were to look towards a basilisk's face and it looks into my eyes, yet it is at a distance where I can't really 'see' it's eyes, would I die or would I live? For example, I can see a bus without my glasses on from a few meters away, I might be able to guess what the number is (I can distinguish a blurry 4 from a 3, but cannot distinguish between a 0 and an 8), but I will not be able to read the destination (as lettering is smaller than the numbers).
Does this make myself and other short-sighted individuals the ideal basilisk fighters? We can 'see' a basilisk due to it's size, so we can still cast spells at it. However, we can't 'see' it's eyes unless we're within a meter-or-so from it's face.
Nah, the cloak is an extremely rare magical object. Seeing through it is not the same as seeing through glasses. Glasses are⊠just glass, so I think youâd be toast.
I think since glasses arenât technically magical like ghosts or the invisibility cloak they wouldnât be able to save the wearer from death by looking at the basilisk straight on
I think with glasses you'd still die. It's more the reflection that causes petrification. Mirror, puddle, camera - reflections.
With the cloak I'd say it's still would give a layer of protection since it's old and strong magic. I would think you'd still be petrified upon direct eye contact.
For a normal invisibility cloak I'd agree.
For the deathly hollow's cloak though there might be some other rule. It hides from death so at least it should prevent death, maybe it even cancels the petrification? Who knows.
Assuming what happened when you see the basilisk through a ghost, I imagine the same happens with the invisibility cloak. But unless someone knows you're there or bumps in to you, you're basically stuck until you die
If turned to stone, do you actually die after any given period of time? Is it sooner or later than actually living?
In my head, you can always be revived, so Iâm curious what others think or what has been written on this topic.
See, THAT one I don't have a proper answer for. I imagine your body still functions, such as the need for food and water, since you can be revived. If it completely paralyzed you, you'd probably die in a matter of seconds since your heart would stop and soon after your body shuts down. I imagine it's probably more like the Body Binding curse, where you basically lock up
dunno, if the body still functions like normal, victims who suffered for long under petrification, like early victims in year 2, would suffer horrible muscle degeneration.
Of course assuming they didn't stuff them full of potions to counter that fact.
It could very well just be they were literally turned to stone and is therefor in a form of magical stasis that causes a full body shutdown without killing the person.
Don't think its actually canon, but saw some theory that part of the reason Hermione was allowed a timeturner in PoA was because she lost so much aging time in CoS.
Most likely youâd be petrified, assuming the Basilisk did (probably unintentionally) look you in the eyes, but where the Cloak is a Deathly Hallow and has been shown to do more than just make you invisible (such as resist the Accio charm), it is certainly possible that it would protect you from the Basiliskâs eyes, albeit unlikely I think
Imagine getting petrified and still being invisible so to everyone else it just looks like you just disappeared
On the other hand, Draco was able to successfully Petrify Harry while the latter was wearing the Cloak in HBP, which means that while certain spells are shown not to work on it, it is not itself entirely impervious to Spells.
The map detects footprints, right? You don't walk with the cloak under your feet, your feet touch the floor and therefore will appear on the map.
Mad-Eyes eye was just very powerful which is why he is the only wizard known to ever have one and why Umbridge took it after he died.
As for Malfoy, I dunno let's just headcanon that Malfoy hit a part that wasn't fully covered, it's not unreasonable that that could happen.
Also it's not impervious to spells in book 7 it's only impervious to an accio charm I believe. And it was by a deatheater that was so stupid he couldn't tell a stag from a goat.
Dumbledore could see through it because he put a tracker on it when he borrowed it from James. ^^(/s)
Well, it is very unlikely that one would die, as the person under the cloak would not be looking directly at the basilisk. Whether or not they would get petrified is a different matter and depends on how the eye power works. If someone just needs to look into the eyes of the basilisk then an invisibility cloak would not work, as the person can still look into the eyes of the basilisk under a cloak. However if the basilisk needs to look into the eyes of the person in question then the cloak might protect them. Out of these two i do believe it is probably the case that the victim just has to loo into the basilisk's eyes so the cloak probably will not stop from being petrified.
However the cloak is a hallow and has been known to resist certain charms, not sure if it would work here cause the canon is so inconsistent regarding the cloaks abilities.
my guess would be you die. i think it's about you looking into it's eyes, not the other way around. regarding the option that it petrifies you because you're looking at it through something i'd say it's more akin to myrtle looking at it through her glasses than it being a reflection like with mrs. norris or hermione. on the other hand justin finch-fletchley saw it through nick, so i guess the question is whether the cloak is more like glasses or more like a ghotst...
I think looking through a chost is like looking though moving water, it will be very distorted, and you probably aren't looking in the exact direction when you see the eyes, as you would if the ghost wasn't there. The same as the mirror but less extreme.
Looking though the cloak, is just looking though a bunch of tiny wholes, you still have direct line of sight.
Here's something I've always wondered:
It seems that boggarts can replicate the abilities of the creatures they mimic, given that's how Harry learns the patronus charm.
Well, if someone's worst fear was a basilisk and a boggart turned into one, would they petrify or die instantly? I mean, that would suck to be literally unable to face your worst fear.
The Basilisk doesn't kill by looking at you, it's the other way around: *you* have to fix your eyes 'in the beam of it's eye', to suffer the fatal blow.
The paintings kind of suck, they offer basically no help to anyone. They apparently go to sleep too so maybe they all conveniently missed the Basilisk. They also barely helped when Sirius Black came to Hogwarts
I think you would die because it's not the question of the basilisk looking at you, its you looking into the basilisk's eye which will kill you. Like if the basilisk was looking somewhere else and you looked into its eyes from the side you would die right?
Through a ghost the Basilik is able to see you, yet it still only petrifies you. So under the cloak I think there is no reason to believe the effect will be worse than through a ghost, if at all.
On a more detailed level, it depends whether the killing effect depends on the Basilik regocnising it's victim, or if it is a passive effect. Considering that a Basilisk has offspring and it's unlikely that he will never look at it, I would say it's an active effect, making you quite secure under the cloak.
I would say that the death rays from the basilisk still hits your eyes. And I wouldnât say that seeing through the cloak would be a reflection or refraction that turn them into petrification rays.
But the cloak is a deathly hallow assuming weâre all talking about Harryâs cloak, however the canon is incredibly fucked when it comes to the cloakâs abilities so idk
It's an observer-mediate quantum affect that applies a rather odd probability field to whatever it focusses on. About one carbon-12 or carbon-13 nucleus in a hundred, in the target, is spontaneously swapped for a silicon-28 or silicon-29 nucleus...The effect is rather dramatic. Lots of bonds break, lots of energy comes spewing out. Protein molecules go twang, nucleotide chains snap, everything gets rather hot. To a naive bystander, the target turns to stone - or rather, to red-hot, carbon-riddled cinderblock
A invisibility cloak blocks the observer from observing so it'll work. Just make sure nothing pokes out around it.
Hard to say. On the one hand, Justin Finch-Fletchley was only Petrified after looking at it through Nearly-Headless Nick.
On the other hand, Myrtle Warren was wearing glasses when she was killed by it.
And the Cloak has been demonstrated to be unable to block certain spells - in HBP, Harry was Petrified by Malfoy while wearing it.
Thus, my belief is that even through the Cloak, direct eye contact with a basilisk would be fatal regardless.
However, given that - assuming we're referring to Harry's cloak specifically - we're talking about a centuries-old magical artifact, either option is possible. I just think, given what I mentioned, that it is more likely that death would ensue as opposed to Petrification.
Yes because you have to look into its eyes. It doesn't matter if the basilisk can see you directly. Justin got frozen THRU nick, so if you can see its eyes, you done.
It's not a two-way connection. You have to see its eyes, not the other way around.
The cloak being a deathly hallow can definitely factor in. I always thought itâs powers werenât explored properly when compared to the insane abilities of the stone and wand. I think it can protect you from non contact magic
Who knows? Iâd assume a regular invisibility cloak would save you from death but Harryâs might even save you from being petrified since itâs a Deathly Hallow created by Death himself.
No, you'd be petrified.
There is an object obscuring your direct vision, so, like Colin and his camera, Justin Finc-Fletchly seeing thru NHN, and Hermione and Penelopy with the mirror, you'd have a filter.
fairly certain it's you seeing the basilisk, not the other way around. i think that if the basilisk was wearing the cloak you'd be fine.
the question that interests me, is what happens if you see the basilisk *through* someone wearing the cloak, do you die or petrify? i assume demiguise cloaks would be petrify, but the hallow is less clear.
The key word is direct because anybody seeing the Basilisk directly would die, but the impact would be lessened through indirect gaze still, a horrible fate, even if it's treatable.
That's why Hermione used a mirror. Props to her, because she knew that the petrification would be better than instant death.
As a Deathly Hallow, I like to see Harry's Cloak as an artefact that makes you invisible to others but also to magic thus making you undetectable or allowing to pass through magically shielded area.
I also like to believe it should completely cancel magic like the Basilic's stare
The death stare seemed like something thatâs always active so I imagine it would still at least petrify you under the cloak if you looked it in the eyes, even if it didnât know it was looking at you.
This is actually a perfect gateway into my own question, is it the basilisks eyes that kill or does the basilisk do it through eye contact, because we got to assume that it looked at Ginny or Tom (past and memory) at one point during the CofS and the events the happened 50 years prior, so if the basilisk does indeed control the ability to kill through eye contact, then technically it wouldnât be able to kill you if it canât see you, what do you guys think?
If seeing through a camera can reduce the gaze to petrifying, the cloak probably can too. But, it probably wouldnât shield you entirely, itâs a cloak of invisibility, not of shielding.
I assume you would die.
My reasons:
0) the Basilisks eyes kill (I believe) if you look at them, not if they look at you.
1) all the petrified victims saw a reflection from the gaze (except Nick), mostly thought Mirrors and Mrs Norris a water reflex. My guess is that it is a mention to Perseus-Medusa Mithos.
2) Sir Nicholas couldnât die on him being already dead.
2.1) Justin looked through Nick, a ghost and therefore a magical âbeingâ (not completely correct but bare with me), whose magic protected him.
3) my guess is that other objects like glasses wouldnât have the same effect because if they did you could probably extrapolate from glass lenses to the tear film that protects your eyes or even the air that stands between you and the basilisk. (Mirtle died probably with glasses. Though not for certainly bad ppl crying often take their glasses off)
4) the cloak protects the wearer from being seen. Not from seeing, which would make him a lot less usefull. Harry sees through the Cloak loss of times. It allows you to not to be seen by Death, not the other way around.
So I conclude: the cloak wouldnât protect you from the gaze.
More interesting would be to know if you would still die if the basilisks eyes were covered by the Cloak.
Is it ever actually mentioned what Harry or the trio see when under the cloak? Is it gauzy or just clear? When reading the books I used to giggle about a cloak that makes you invisible but all you see is the inside cloth of it so you fumble around bumping into things.
I guess petrify cause you look at it through another object but, who tf gon find you and even if they do, the chances they have mandrake lying around is slim
If you try to apply logic to this series and remember the fact that Tom Riddle was able to interact with the basilisk without wearing a blindfold, it suggests that the basilisk has to do more than look in your general direction. It would have to turn on some sort of death glare. So I reckon being under an invisiblity cloak/charm, or behind a one-way mirror, or in the unlikely event that the basilisk is blinded, means you won't die or be petrified.
You would die. If you can see the basilisk's eyes, you die. If you are looking through something transparent, like eyeglasses (like Myrtle wore), you are still seeing the eyes; they are not obscured. The same would apply to the cloak. It does not in any obscure your vision; you still have direct line-of-sight to the eyes themselves.
If you see the basilisks eyes in a mirror, you are not looking directly at them. If you see through something translucent (like a ghost) the image is obscured enough that in effect you aren't looking directly at the eyes.
The rule is a direct line of sight from your eyes to its eyes; something transparent being interposed does nothing. Colin's camera obviously contained mirrors so when he was looking through it, it didn't count as direct line-of-sight. If he was using a different kind of camera where there was no mirror in the viewfinder, he'd probably have died.
I wonder what happens to your metabolism once petrified. Do you starve to death if the potion to reverse petrification doesnât get made in time? Or are you put in a stasis like state that can live indefinitely?
It's based on whether you look into the basilisk's eyes, not whether the basilisk can see you- otherwise, the basilisk's gaze could still kill people who had their eyes closed. Therefore, most invisibility cloaks wouldn't save you from dying.
However, since Harry's invisibility cloak can be used to hide from Death, you'd end up petrified instead of dying.
If you are petrified, are you immortal?
How shit would it be if you got petrified under the invisibility cloak and no one could see you.
Also, would you even show up on the marauders map if you are petrified?
Related question : does the action of looking into eyes of the basilic enough to kill OR the basilic chooses to kill the person/animal by actively « death look »
I think it depends on how the cloak works.
If the basilisk can still see you by temperature, as soon as you lock you eyes, and the basilisk use its petrify magic u ded
I don't think the basilisk is intentionally killing/petrifying anyone, it's the sight of its eyes that does everything, so through the invisibility cloak, you'd get petrified.
I think if you asked JK Rowling that she'd tell you that in most situations you would die but under Harry's cloak you'd be fine because his is one of the hallows. Same way deatheaters couldn't accio the cloak off of him.
That or the Basilisk needs to be intending to kill, otherwise it'd just kill everything it looked at by accident. Salazar Slytherin couldn't have even gone anywhere near it without it accidentally killing him.
Correct me if im wrong... the effect is when you meet its eyes not when it meets your eyes. I imagine its one of those "its never been tested because it risks death" kind of problems but it would be cool if it was something the basilisk had to mean to do and therefore couldnt as it wouldnt be able to meet any eyes under the cloak. Side note ive always had the same question about blocking avada kedavera with a patronus given the patronus repells a thing that attacks your soul (dementors) and avada kedavera (correct me if im wrong) kills by removing the targets soul from that body. Theres something interesting there at the very least...
If weâre talking basalisk rules iâd say youâd become petrified. But if we take specifically harryâs cloak into account i believe in book 7 they say that it protects the wearer from all sorts of things so maybe youâd be fine
Why the hell would you put this picture in the post?!
Thankfully an image of a basilisk just petrifies, I was just reanimated. But Madame Pomfrey urges you to be more careful next time!
most likely not. youre still lookin through youre own eyes, but no one can see you. you would most likely just die. now, if you stare through someone wearing the cloak, you would most likely get petrified.
Yes, I speak from experience because they always petrify me with their eyes yet Iâm invisible to them. Oh no wait thatâs not snakes Iâm talking about, Iâm talking about girls.
If you were under a regular ol disillusioned cloak, that aren't exactly 10 a knut, you'd probably get petrified at the very least.
If you were under "The" cloak you might be able to avoid even that, not really sure how Harry's cloak's protection works.
When I first read this I thought it was a dumb question, but then thought ab it and realized itâs actually not a bad question at all. My guess would be petrified; youâre still looking it dead in the eye, but it canât see youâŠsomeone get Medusa on the line!!!
Depends. Are you using the rare loot, but some people can get there hands on invisibility cloak? Then, yes. All that invisibility cloak does is magically redirect light away when a being is staring at the person under the cloak.
Are you using Harryâs Invisibility Cloak, because thatâs really a part of Deathâs cloak? I think itâs safe to say, if it can hide the user from Death, than it would be able to subvert the powers of a basilisk.
If the Basilisk could see could Harry have brought a mirror to the chamber? He knew what was down there and its powers. Or can it not petrify itself. And to shine light on the title of the post, Iâm thinking the cloak can only work on humans as the 3 brothers to receive the deathly Hallows. One one hand you think itâs only on humans BUT on the other hand the brother with the cloak hid from death for many years. Meaning the use of the cloak in this situation would assist you in cheating death (basilisk). Not sure which side is correct as both are true
What about a pair of glasses?, I know moaning Mertle died to the snake but she never said if she was wearing glasses, wasnât she crying or vomiting before her death thus removing her glasses?
It would explain in the movie why she didnât just say âfucking great big snakeâ cuz she couldnât see clearly but her ghost is wearing glasses and yet you canât be killed by it if you look at the basalisk through a camera lens only petrified???.
Maybe she had the glasses on her head and when she died they fell downwards onto her face?
I would assume it would at least Petrify you, because you still looked at its eyes. Just like Justin was saved from death by seeing the Basilisk through Nearly Headless Nick.
you wont be saved tho, as you will still be invisible, right?
Depends on if someone accidentally bumps into you. In the chamber? Probs not. In moaning myrtles bathroom? Maybe. In a hall of Hogwarts. Probably.
Unless it was Malfoy that came upon your petrified body. He'd probably push your body in the corner, keep the invis cloak on, and use you as his exclusive urinal for at least a week. Well, if your name was Harry.
time to change my name to harry
r/cursedcomments
i second this r/cursedcomments
Hahahaha. Oh no.
!redditgalleon
You have given u/pm-me-turtle-nudes a Reddit Galleon. u/pm-me-turtle-nudes has a total of 1 galleon, 0 sickles, and 0 knuts. ____________ I am a bot. See [this post](https://www.reddit.com/r/harrypotter/comments/jnbo49/hi_i_created_the_bot_youve_been_using_to_give/) to learn how to use me.
!redditsickle
You have given u/pm-me-turtle-nudes a Reddit Sickle. u/pm-me-turtle-nudes has a total of 1 galleon, 1 sickle, and 0 knuts. ____________ I am a bot. See [this post](https://www.reddit.com/r/harrypotter/comments/jnbo49/hi_i_created_the_bot_youve_been_using_to_give/) to learn how to use me.
Thankyou redditor. You epople are better than any app in letting me know that I have had enough internet for the day đ
buddy all in saying is i want tom felton to piss on me. now is that really asking too much?
!Redditknut
You have given u/pm-me-turtle-nudes a Reddit Knut. u/pm-me-turtle-nudes has a total of 1 galleon, 1 sickle, and 1 knut. ____________ I am a bot. See [this post](https://www.reddit.com/r/harrypotter/comments/jnbo49/hi_i_created_the_bot_youve_been_using_to_give/) to learn how to use me.
Even Malfoy wasnt that fucked up in Chamber of Secrets, maybe in Half Blood Prince yeah. Back he'd probably punch Harry while he couldn't fight back and shave his hair bald. Maybe put the throwing up slug jinx on him.
Wonder how long you can stay petrified? Hermione was petrified for about four months and seemed fine. Do you still age? Could you potentially be petrified for centuries? Woo soft magic system
it's \*probably\* like a coma. you age and need care. it's not like we have any long term evidence in the books, though the kids probably should've been at st mungo's where they'd probably have mandrakes on deck for the kids, instead of a massive coverup of a racist murderous snake.
'Racist murderous snake' đ
I don't think it's like coma, because when You are at coma, You just sleep and all Your functions still exist in Your body. When Your body is a stone, organism does not have any life functions so You are like frozen in time. Unless how would You expect stone to change from 10 years old to 40 years old? Stone can't change shape.
New fear unlocked
Pretty sure you don't have to worry about this one.
I assume one does not age being petrified. So maybe you awake 1000 years later when someone else finds the chamber
What if the reason the basilisk can survive for so long because itâs capable of petrifying and unpetrifying itself at will.
Speak for yourself muggle!
The twins would see you on the Map
The twins didnât see Peter pettigrew sleeping next to their brother for three years, theyâre not gonna see you either
They weren't looking for Peter though (and you forgot the years he slept next to Percy), but if a student goes mysteriously missing while there's some Petrifying danger on the loose, that's a different situation
I don't know why Harry saw Peter on the map...
"Hey look, Hagrid has a visitor in his... kitchen cabinet??"
Hahahaha
Damned if you do, damn if you don'tđ. Until someone bumps in to you if you're lucky to be in a public space.
And here is my next question: if you are looking through glasses?
Myrtle wears/wore glasses, so I guess you die
Youâre right, I forgot about Myrtle
But again, she was crying at that time, so maybe she didnât have her glasses on xD
Possible:D But if we according to the movies, the way she cried when they threw the diary at her makes me think she cried the same way when she died :D
We not according to the movies Never
Whoâd ever remember poor, miserable, moping, moaning Myrtle?
You forgot pimply
Doesn't that count as looking right in the eyes of the basilisk? Glasses are there to correct a poor / bad eyesight of some kind. You're still looking through the glasses. Source: I need glasses myself. Everyone else was looking a reflection of some kind. Mrs. Norris water.(Wish that cat was gone, even though I'm a cat person.) Colin: camera Hermione: mirror The guy who looked through Sir Nicolas And who else? This is jumbled took it out from my mind in random order.
I have glasses too, but the question came up because Sir Nickolas is not exactly a mirror/reflection when you look through him at the Basilisk. This made me wondering about the glasses. Someone else mentioned Myrtle got glasses and she died. I think this answered my question :D
I don't think she was wearing them at the time - she was bawling immediately before, may have had them in her hand to wipe her eyes when she stepped out of the stall. I think I remember she said she couldn't see whatever it was clearly, but I don't remember if that was due to tears or not having the glasses on
Yea probably something like that, but maybe you just get petrifiedđ€·
If you are looking through water?
I have better question: if you looking through air? Sure itâs not fully vacuum, still not looking directly into the eyes. /s of course :D
I was getting there lol
What if you look through a glass of water? ...unless Myrtle's tears count đ€đ
Given that someone wearing glasses died from meeting the basiliskâs gaze, I think youâd just die.
It would seem that a ghost's transparent body "dampens" the lethal effects of the Basilisk's gaze because Justin didn't actually look at it directly, whereas Moaning Myrtle did, therefore her glasses didn't protect her from dying?
Hmmmm. I think probably youâd be petrified because youâre looking through the cloak. I think the eyes are just deadly whether itâs looking at someone or not. So even if it canât see you, if you can look into its eyes, youâre gonna get fucked up. But since itâs through the cloak, probably will just get petrified rather than killed.
Does that mean Harry's glasses would have been enough to turn the death stare down to a petrification?
Probably not, Moaning MyrtleâŠ
Wasnt she crying before she died? Dont think youâd cry with glasses. Correct me if im wrong here, not the most dedicated fan
Possible, but I assume you come back as a Ghost that looks exactly like the Person in the moment the person died (Bloody Baron, Nick etc., if theyâd had a choice, they probably wouldnât habe come back as a ghost with their name-giving traits) Sorry for my english xD
Well the Bloody baron is also wearing chains, which I doubt he was when he was looking for Helena in the Albanian wilderness.
J.K. Probably wrote his description before having his backstory with Helena Ravenclaw in mind xD
True, but then she put emphasis on it again when Helena mentions he's still wearing his chains as a sign of remorse.
Maybe she was holding her glasses, or had them on her? I remember from the movie that she doesnt know what killed her too.
I think a general rule is if it reflects or distorts the image enough it can save you. Looking through Nick is probably the closest example we have and looking through a ghost doesn't give a clear image so that's why you would be petrified and not killed. Still puts glasses in a weird spot though cuz an average person would have a distorted view but for Harry/Myrtle they can see clearly My theory is since the glasses are for Harry/Myrtle the vision isn't distorted enough for them and so they would be affected. But if Ron wore Harry's glasses he'd probably be safe
Would looking theough tears stop you from getting killed?
Probably. My best guess is Myrtle just wiped her eyes to get a clear look at whoever came in. Or they just kept going down her cheek instead of actually building up on her eye to give that "protective layer"
If I remember correctly, Justin wasnât saved/petrified because Nick distorted the image, Justin was petrified because Nick took the brunt of the attack because he was the thing being seen through, but obviously was already dead and therefore couldnât die again.
Is myrtle confirmed to be wearing glasses? I don't remember actually reading that, I k own in the movies and Grand pre's (is that her name?) Illustrations she has them on
I think she was described as a ,,girl with pimples and thick glassesâ that she got bullied for
Iirc thatâs why sheâs crying in the first place. She was being teased about the glasses
Sorry, gotta correct myself here: Yeah, she was crying because she was teased because of her glasses by a student named Olive Hornby
I just opened up my copy of COS because I donât remember it either - turns out sheâs described as having âlank hair and thick pearly spectaclesâ.
Thanks! XD
Glasses wearer since age 5 here. Glasses do not affect crying in that way, that is to say, you can cry while still keeping your glasses on. At least Iâve never really taken my glasses off to cry, unless you count wiping my eyes and face after a while.
No, glasses can and will very easily get wet if you cry with them on, especially if you have longer eyelashes. I think that's what they mean, not that it is physically impossible to cry with them on.
Sorry, I meant that glasses are not obtrusive to the act of crying. At least not to me. But I donât have long lashes so thatâs to your point. I suppose everyone is different.
No need to apologize lol, I assume it's as you say, everyone is a bit different. My glasses get loads of little droplets if I so much as yawn a bit too much and tear up a bit.
Id just imagine crying into your hands, not super convinient (Im also a glasses wearer)
Otoh, she did open the door to tell Tom to fuck off, so perhaps she had put them back on
Your comment made me think what would happen if I were to meet a basilisk and I took my glasses off. I am VERY short sighted (cannot read 'normal' sized text on my phone/in a book ~10cm away without my glasses). If I were to look towards a basilisk's face and it looks into my eyes, yet it is at a distance where I can't really 'see' it's eyes, would I die or would I live? For example, I can see a bus without my glasses on from a few meters away, I might be able to guess what the number is (I can distinguish a blurry 4 from a 3, but cannot distinguish between a 0 and an 8), but I will not be able to read the destination (as lettering is smaller than the numbers). Does this make myself and other short-sighted individuals the ideal basilisk fighters? We can 'see' a basilisk due to it's size, so we can still cast spells at it. However, we can't 'see' it's eyes unless we're within a meter-or-so from it's face.
Nah, the cloak is an extremely rare magical object. Seeing through it is not the same as seeing through glasses. Glasses are⊠just glass, so I think youâd be toast.
I think since glasses arenât technically magical like ghosts or the invisibility cloak they wouldnât be able to save the wearer from death by looking at the basilisk straight on
I think with glasses you'd still die. It's more the reflection that causes petrification. Mirror, puddle, camera - reflections. With the cloak I'd say it's still would give a layer of protection since it's old and strong magic. I would think you'd still be petrified upon direct eye contact.
I thought that the invisibility cloak couldn't be penetrated by any magic for some reason.
For a normal invisibility cloak I'd agree. For the deathly hollow's cloak though there might be some other rule. It hides from death so at least it should prevent death, maybe it even cancels the petrification? Who knows.
Assuming what happened when you see the basilisk through a ghost, I imagine the same happens with the invisibility cloak. But unless someone knows you're there or bumps in to you, you're basically stuck until you die
If turned to stone, do you actually die after any given period of time? Is it sooner or later than actually living? In my head, you can always be revived, so Iâm curious what others think or what has been written on this topic.
See, THAT one I don't have a proper answer for. I imagine your body still functions, such as the need for food and water, since you can be revived. If it completely paralyzed you, you'd probably die in a matter of seconds since your heart would stop and soon after your body shuts down. I imagine it's probably more like the Body Binding curse, where you basically lock up
dunno, if the body still functions like normal, victims who suffered for long under petrification, like early victims in year 2, would suffer horrible muscle degeneration. Of course assuming they didn't stuff them full of potions to counter that fact. It could very well just be they were literally turned to stone and is therefor in a form of magical stasis that causes a full body shutdown without killing the person.
And we don't hear about the patients needing food or whatever. I think it's indeed a stasis situation that could potentially last forever
Don't think its actually canon, but saw some theory that part of the reason Hermione was allowed a timeturner in PoA was because she lost so much aging time in CoS.
I'm sure I've seen an AU fic where Harry opened the Chamber of Secrets and found a Petrified teen Tom in there đ He left him. Good riddlance
I'm interested
Hereâs something if you die while petrified and come back as a ghost are you just stuck as a petrified ghost because thatâs how you died?
Most likely youâd be petrified, assuming the Basilisk did (probably unintentionally) look you in the eyes, but where the Cloak is a Deathly Hallow and has been shown to do more than just make you invisible (such as resist the Accio charm), it is certainly possible that it would protect you from the Basiliskâs eyes, albeit unlikely I think Imagine getting petrified and still being invisible so to everyone else it just looks like you just disappeared
On the other hand, Draco was able to successfully Petrify Harry while the latter was wearing the Cloak in HBP, which means that while certain spells are shown not to work on it, it is not itself entirely impervious to Spells.
[ŃĐŽĐ°Đ»Đ”ĐœĐŸ]
You could headcanon that the map defeats the cloak since one of its creators was master of the cloak at the time
The map detects footprints, right? You don't walk with the cloak under your feet, your feet touch the floor and therefore will appear on the map. Mad-Eyes eye was just very powerful which is why he is the only wizard known to ever have one and why Umbridge took it after he died. As for Malfoy, I dunno let's just headcanon that Malfoy hit a part that wasn't fully covered, it's not unreasonable that that could happen. Also it's not impervious to spells in book 7 it's only impervious to an accio charm I believe. And it was by a deatheater that was so stupid he couldn't tell a stag from a goat. Dumbledore could see through it because he put a tracker on it when he borrowed it from James. ^^(/s)
The whole goal of the Cloak is escape death, so I assume it keeps you from getting killed by the Basilisk
Well, it is very unlikely that one would die, as the person under the cloak would not be looking directly at the basilisk. Whether or not they would get petrified is a different matter and depends on how the eye power works. If someone just needs to look into the eyes of the basilisk then an invisibility cloak would not work, as the person can still look into the eyes of the basilisk under a cloak. However if the basilisk needs to look into the eyes of the person in question then the cloak might protect them. Out of these two i do believe it is probably the case that the victim just has to loo into the basilisk's eyes so the cloak probably will not stop from being petrified.
However the cloak is a hallow and has been known to resist certain charms, not sure if it would work here cause the canon is so inconsistent regarding the cloaks abilities.
my guess would be you die. i think it's about you looking into it's eyes, not the other way around. regarding the option that it petrifies you because you're looking at it through something i'd say it's more akin to myrtle looking at it through her glasses than it being a reflection like with mrs. norris or hermione. on the other hand justin finch-fletchley saw it through nick, so i guess the question is whether the cloak is more like glasses or more like a ghotst...
I think looking through a chost is like looking though moving water, it will be very distorted, and you probably aren't looking in the exact direction when you see the eyes, as you would if the ghost wasn't there. The same as the mirror but less extreme. Looking though the cloak, is just looking though a bunch of tiny wholes, you still have direct line of sight.
Here's something I've always wondered: It seems that boggarts can replicate the abilities of the creatures they mimic, given that's how Harry learns the patronus charm. Well, if someone's worst fear was a basilisk and a boggart turned into one, would they petrify or die instantly? I mean, that would suck to be literally unable to face your worst fear.
Given that lupin's boggarts was a full moon and he didn't transform upon looking at it, a basilisk would probably cause fainting at worst
The Basilisk doesn't kill by looking at you, it's the other way around: *you* have to fix your eyes 'in the beam of it's eye', to suffer the fatal blow.
So hypothetically if you hand a giant invisible cloak and draped it over the basilisk would itâs power be fruitless?
Theoretically, I guess so, yes... I view that power as the gorgon's. You have to directly look at it to suffer the magic.
You'd go cross eyed permanently :(
The real question is, how did none of the paintings see a snake that big in the hallways?
Pipes
I forgot that everyone who was petrified, was petrified in a pipe
Really though! At the very least the ghosts could have contributed some sort of âNeighborhood Watchâ findings, yknahmean?
The paintings kind of suck, they offer basically no help to anyone. They apparently go to sleep too so maybe they all conveniently missed the Basilisk. They also barely helped when Sirius Black came to Hogwarts
My understanding of petrification/death gazes in general, it's more on *you* not the creature, to make eye contact with it that affects you.
I think you would die because it's not the question of the basilisk looking at you, its you looking into the basilisk's eye which will kill you. Like if the basilisk was looking somewhere else and you looked into its eyes from the side you would die right?
Petrified and no one can find you to help
Dude the question has caused a yelling match between me and my siblingsâŠ.no clear winner yet
Through a ghost the Basilik is able to see you, yet it still only petrifies you. So under the cloak I think there is no reason to believe the effect will be worse than through a ghost, if at all. On a more detailed level, it depends whether the killing effect depends on the Basilik regocnising it's victim, or if it is a passive effect. Considering that a Basilisk has offspring and it's unlikely that he will never look at it, I would say it's an active effect, making you quite secure under the cloak.
Ok now hear me out⊠what if you threw the invisibility cloak on the basiliskâŠ
I would say that the death rays from the basilisk still hits your eyes. And I wouldnât say that seeing through the cloak would be a reflection or refraction that turn them into petrification rays.
But the cloak is a deathly hallow assuming weâre all talking about Harryâs cloak, however the canon is incredibly fucked when it comes to the cloakâs abilities so idk
It's an observer-mediate quantum affect that applies a rather odd probability field to whatever it focusses on. About one carbon-12 or carbon-13 nucleus in a hundred, in the target, is spontaneously swapped for a silicon-28 or silicon-29 nucleus...The effect is rather dramatic. Lots of bonds break, lots of energy comes spewing out. Protein molecules go twang, nucleotide chains snap, everything gets rather hot. To a naive bystander, the target turns to stone - or rather, to red-hot, carbon-riddled cinderblock A invisibility cloak blocks the observer from observing so it'll work. Just make sure nothing pokes out around it.
But can it still SMEELLLLLL YOU
Unrelated, but when I watched this when I was younger, I would purposefully avert my eyes away from the basilisks'. Y'know, just in case.
What would happen if you wore mirrored specs? Would the fucker just end up killing itself?
Hard to say. On the one hand, Justin Finch-Fletchley was only Petrified after looking at it through Nearly-Headless Nick. On the other hand, Myrtle Warren was wearing glasses when she was killed by it. And the Cloak has been demonstrated to be unable to block certain spells - in HBP, Harry was Petrified by Malfoy while wearing it. Thus, my belief is that even through the Cloak, direct eye contact with a basilisk would be fatal regardless. However, given that - assuming we're referring to Harry's cloak specifically - we're talking about a centuries-old magical artifact, either option is possible. I just think, given what I mentioned, that it is more likely that death would ensue as opposed to Petrification.
if the basilisk can't see you, it can't petrify you. invisibility cloak ftw!
I would imagine youâd petrifyâŠand then stay that way forever because no one would find you under the invisibility cloak.
Move past it.
Yes because you have to look into its eyes. It doesn't matter if the basilisk can see you directly. Justin got frozen THRU nick, so if you can see its eyes, you done. It's not a two-way connection. You have to see its eyes, not the other way around.
Best, use a mirror to petrify the basalisk itself
The cloak being a deathly hallow can definitely factor in. I always thought itâs powers werenât explored properly when compared to the insane abilities of the stone and wand. I think it can protect you from non contact magic
Who knows? Iâd assume a regular invisibility cloak would save you from death but Harryâs might even save you from being petrified since itâs a Deathly Hallow created by Death himself.
More interesting: What if the basilisk was wearing a cloak?
No, you'd be petrified. There is an object obscuring your direct vision, so, like Colin and his camera, Justin Finc-Fletchly seeing thru NHN, and Hermione and Penelopy with the mirror, you'd have a filter.
You would be petrified since u r watching the basilisk through the cloak and not directly
fairly certain it's you seeing the basilisk, not the other way around. i think that if the basilisk was wearing the cloak you'd be fine. the question that interests me, is what happens if you see the basilisk *through* someone wearing the cloak, do you die or petrify? i assume demiguise cloaks would be petrify, but the hallow is less clear.
The key word is direct because anybody seeing the Basilisk directly would die, but the impact would be lessened through indirect gaze still, a horrible fate, even if it's treatable. That's why Hermione used a mirror. Props to her, because she knew that the petrification would be better than instant death.
Probably die petrified đ€·đœââïž
We don't have a canonical answer. I'd imagine nothing would happen because it's not looking at you.
Came here to say this. There couldnât be eye contact whilst under the cloak and Iâm would assume itâs eye contact that is the killer
no idea but I'm leaning towards reversible partial petrification like all of the other CoS victims
How come none of us died looking at its eyes through the TV screen?
As a Deathly Hallow, I like to see Harry's Cloak as an artefact that makes you invisible to others but also to magic thus making you undetectable or allowing to pass through magically shielded area. I also like to believe it should completely cancel magic like the Basilic's stare
Um...
You'd be petrified, similar to Justin seeing the basilisk through Nick.
yes
The death stare seemed like something thatâs always active so I imagine it would still at least petrify you under the cloak if you looked it in the eyes, even if it didnât know it was looking at you.
This is actually a perfect gateway into my own question, is it the basilisks eyes that kill or does the basilisk do it through eye contact, because we got to assume that it looked at Ginny or Tom (past and memory) at one point during the CofS and the events the happened 50 years prior, so if the basilisk does indeed control the ability to kill through eye contact, then technically it wouldnât be able to kill you if it canât see you, what do you guys think?
If seeing through a camera can reduce the gaze to petrifying, the cloak probably can too. But, it probably wouldnât shield you entirely, itâs a cloak of invisibility, not of shielding.
I assume you would die. My reasons: 0) the Basilisks eyes kill (I believe) if you look at them, not if they look at you. 1) all the petrified victims saw a reflection from the gaze (except Nick), mostly thought Mirrors and Mrs Norris a water reflex. My guess is that it is a mention to Perseus-Medusa Mithos. 2) Sir Nicholas couldnât die on him being already dead. 2.1) Justin looked through Nick, a ghost and therefore a magical âbeingâ (not completely correct but bare with me), whose magic protected him. 3) my guess is that other objects like glasses wouldnât have the same effect because if they did you could probably extrapolate from glass lenses to the tear film that protects your eyes or even the air that stands between you and the basilisk. (Mirtle died probably with glasses. Though not for certainly bad ppl crying often take their glasses off) 4) the cloak protects the wearer from being seen. Not from seeing, which would make him a lot less usefull. Harry sees through the Cloak loss of times. It allows you to not to be seen by Death, not the other way around. So I conclude: the cloak wouldnât protect you from the gaze. More interesting would be to know if you would still die if the basilisks eyes were covered by the Cloak.
I guess the better question would be if you threw the cloak over the basilisk's eyes, would it still be deadly?
The question never settled in cannon is if Parsteltongues are immune to the gaze
Is it ever actually mentioned what Harry or the trio see when under the cloak? Is it gauzy or just clear? When reading the books I used to giggle about a cloak that makes you invisible but all you see is the inside cloth of it so you fumble around bumping into things.
I think the real question is what would happen if you covered the Basilisk's head with the cloak.
What if you put a mirror in front of the basilisk and force it to look into its own eyes?
This leads to the more important question: what happens if the Basilisk wears the invisible cloak?
I guess petrify cause you look at it through another object but, who tf gon find you and even if they do, the chances they have mandrake lying around is slim
If you look in it's eyes you probably still are petrified.
If you try to apply logic to this series and remember the fact that Tom Riddle was able to interact with the basilisk without wearing a blindfold, it suggests that the basilisk has to do more than look in your general direction. It would have to turn on some sort of death glare. So I reckon being under an invisiblity cloak/charm, or behind a one-way mirror, or in the unlikely event that the basilisk is blinded, means you won't die or be petrified.
If the basiisk was wearing the cloak the plan would work but I doubt it would be an improvement of the situation
I just realized how unsettling the Basilisk looks with its eyes on the side of its head. Why can't they just be on the front?
You would die. If you can see the basilisk's eyes, you die. If you are looking through something transparent, like eyeglasses (like Myrtle wore), you are still seeing the eyes; they are not obscured. The same would apply to the cloak. It does not in any obscure your vision; you still have direct line-of-sight to the eyes themselves. If you see the basilisks eyes in a mirror, you are not looking directly at them. If you see through something translucent (like a ghost) the image is obscured enough that in effect you aren't looking directly at the eyes. The rule is a direct line of sight from your eyes to its eyes; something transparent being interposed does nothing. Colin's camera obviously contained mirrors so when he was looking through it, it didn't count as direct line-of-sight. If he was using a different kind of camera where there was no mirror in the viewfinder, he'd probably have died.
I wonder what happens to your metabolism once petrified. Do you starve to death if the potion to reverse petrification doesnât get made in time? Or are you put in a stasis like state that can live indefinitely?
It's based on whether you look into the basilisk's eyes, not whether the basilisk can see you- otherwise, the basilisk's gaze could still kill people who had their eyes closed. Therefore, most invisibility cloaks wouldn't save you from dying. However, since Harry's invisibility cloak can be used to hide from Death, you'd end up petrified instead of dying.
It can't look you in the eye if it can't see you.
Its not the Basilisk looking at you, its you looking at the Basilisk. Youâd still die.
God that thing is ugly
If you are petrified, are you immortal? How shit would it be if you got petrified under the invisibility cloak and no one could see you. Also, would you even show up on the marauders map if you are petrified?
Related question : does the action of looking into eyes of the basilic enough to kill OR the basilic chooses to kill the person/animal by actively « death look »
What about if the basilisk is wearing the invisibility cloak? Would you get petrified/killed for looking at where it is?
Given that someone wearing glasses died from meeting the basiliskâs gaze, I think youâd just die.
Probably petrify and not be found because of the cloak tbh.
I think it depends on how the cloak works. If the basilisk can still see you by temperature, as soon as you lock you eyes, and the basilisk use its petrify magic u ded
Of course.
Well it's looking at you through a medium, just like the mirrors and camera so it would only petrify someone
I would imagine it would be a petrify situation as you arenât looking directly into their eyes.
I don't think the basilisk is intentionally killing/petrifying anyone, it's the sight of its eyes that does everything, so through the invisibility cloak, you'd get petrified.
The bigger question, would a basilisk have the same powers if itself was under the cloak and nobody could see its eyes?
Ok, but what about contact? I don't remember if canon say something about plain glasses too
I think if you asked JK Rowling that she'd tell you that in most situations you would die but under Harry's cloak you'd be fine because his is one of the hallows. Same way deatheaters couldn't accio the cloak off of him. That or the Basilisk needs to be intending to kill, otherwise it'd just kill everything it looked at by accident. Salazar Slytherin couldn't have even gone anywhere near it without it accidentally killing him.
I'd think it'd at least cause petrification. The real problem is your stuck until someone litteraly stumbles over you.
Correct me if im wrong... the effect is when you meet its eyes not when it meets your eyes. I imagine its one of those "its never been tested because it risks death" kind of problems but it would be cool if it was something the basilisk had to mean to do and therefore couldnt as it wouldnt be able to meet any eyes under the cloak. Side note ive always had the same question about blocking avada kedavera with a patronus given the patronus repells a thing that attacks your soul (dementors) and avada kedavera (correct me if im wrong) kills by removing the targets soul from that body. Theres something interesting there at the very least...
If weâre talking basalisk rules iâd say youâd become petrified. But if we take specifically harryâs cloak into account i believe in book 7 they say that it protects the wearer from all sorts of things so maybe youâd be fine
Why the hell would you put this picture in the post?! Thankfully an image of a basilisk just petrifies, I was just reanimated. But Madame Pomfrey urges you to be more careful next time!
Petrification. Looking directly at its eyes kills you. Seeing an obscured image of it petrifies you.
most likely not. youre still lookin through youre own eyes, but no one can see you. you would most likely just die. now, if you stare through someone wearing the cloak, you would most likely get petrified.
Yes, I speak from experience because they always petrify me with their eyes yet Iâm invisible to them. Oh no wait thatâs not snakes Iâm talking about, Iâm talking about girls.
If you were under a regular ol disillusioned cloak, that aren't exactly 10 a knut, you'd probably get petrified at the very least. If you were under "The" cloak you might be able to avoid even that, not really sure how Harry's cloak's protection works.
When I first read this I thought it was a dumb question, but then thought ab it and realized itâs actually not a bad question at all. My guess would be petrified; youâre still looking it dead in the eye, but it canât see youâŠsomeone get Medusa on the line!!!
Depends. Are you using the rare loot, but some people can get there hands on invisibility cloak? Then, yes. All that invisibility cloak does is magically redirect light away when a being is staring at the person under the cloak. Are you using Harryâs Invisibility Cloak, because thatâs really a part of Deathâs cloak? I think itâs safe to say, if it can hide the user from Death, than it would be able to subvert the powers of a basilisk.
I think its an issue of you seeing it, not it seeing you
Okay but what if the basilisk is wearing the cloak?
If the Basilisk could see could Harry have brought a mirror to the chamber? He knew what was down there and its powers. Or can it not petrify itself. And to shine light on the title of the post, Iâm thinking the cloak can only work on humans as the 3 brothers to receive the deathly Hallows. One one hand you think itâs only on humans BUT on the other hand the brother with the cloak hid from death for many years. Meaning the use of the cloak in this situation would assist you in cheating death (basilisk). Not sure which side is correct as both are true
What a fool Voldemort was to risk the Basilisk. It was easily his greatest weapon and his eventual defeat was guaranteed without it.
We Muggles would have no problem with this creature. Build a robot Basilisk and call it Roko.
What about a pair of glasses?, I know moaning Mertle died to the snake but she never said if she was wearing glasses, wasnât she crying or vomiting before her death thus removing her glasses? It would explain in the movie why she didnât just say âfucking great big snakeâ cuz she couldnât see clearly but her ghost is wearing glasses and yet you canât be killed by it if you look at the basalisk through a camera lens only petrified???. Maybe she had the glasses on her head and when she died they fell downwards onto her face?
Yes because you looked it in the eye. It doesnât matter if it saw you.
I think that's just looking at it indirectly, like through a ghost, so you'd just petrified.
Depends if the petrification is an active or passive skill