I think he still would have been evil. Something in him that wanted to get out I think. He might not have been quite as bad, or he might have been not so bad when he was young, but the level of his evil is too great to suggest that a different family would change it completely.

jen//ravenclaw

I have to disagree. We are what we are mainly from how we were raised, it's very, very rare that people are true, born sociopaths. Neglect is a very powerful factor in someone turning bad.

JellyBellys//Gryffindor

While personality usually seems to be affected by a person's surroundings, Riddle doesn't seem to be the case. I didn't get the feel that they mistreated him at the orphanage. Okay, so he may have been a bit better than he is now, but I still think the outcome (aka Voldy) would be the same.

Rissa//Ravenclaw

I don't think they mistreated him but one of the worst things that can happen to someone is being neglected, and not getting enough attention/affection. It can even screw up a person more than out right abuse can.

JellyBellys//Gryffindor

Ah, that's true. No idea how I forgot about that. You're right. Neglect can definitely mess a person up. If he had thought someone cared about him, the wizarding world might have been a safer place.

Rissa//Ravenclaw

Yeah, it would have. Which enrages me more and more at Dumbledore. "Hey, it's a possibly dangerous kid! What should I do? I KNOW! I'll threaten him, set his wardrobe on fire, and then not accompany his 11/12 year old ass to London!" *sigh*

JellyBellys//Gryffindor

Not only that, but by setting his wardrobe on fire Dumbledore showed him something else he could use to terrorize the children (and probably others) with. When I re-read HBP I just kind of shook my head at Dumbledore's treatment of Tom, even from the beginning.

Rachel//Gryffindor

EXACTLY! It was so immature of Dumbledore, and irresponsible. Kind of like when he kept bashing the Dursleys in the head with their wine glasses.


JellyBellys//Gryffindor

Wow. Five books of Dumbledore looking like the good guy, I guess I kind of ignored his treatment of Tom in HBP. Never thought of it that way. Well that wasn't too smart, all-knowing headmaster. I don't think at that point, Dumbledore could have changed much. Tom had already begun his torturing of kids. (I can't remember what he did because I haven't read HBP in forever, so I'll just call it torturing for lack of a better word.) Still, it doesn't condone Dumbledore's behavior because threatening him and setting his wardrobe on fire certainly didn't help him either.

Rissa//Ravenclaw

I started thinking less of Dumbledore quite awhile ago, cause I used to hang around this comm of Slytherin Quidditch players/Gryffindor girls shippers, and they pointed it out to me that Dumbledore really steals the cup from Slytherin in Harry's first year, and while Malfoy sucks, it's still a cruel thing to do. Dumbledore does a lot of stuff like that.

I agree though that Tom was pretty far gone by that point, but Dumbledore didn't even make an effort, and I think that's what annoyed me so much.


JellyBellys//Gryffindor

I totally agree--I heard someone say that the opposite of love isn't hate, it's indifference. To me it would be so much worse to be neglected than be mistreated. Maybe it's just me, but if they're mistreating you they at least give a damn about you, whereas if you're neglected you're nothing to them. *shrugs*

Rachel//Gryffindor

I've heard that too, and I agree! Hate at least says someone cares enough about you to think about you and obsess over you (Draco, anyone?) but indifference is like you don't even exist.

JellyBellys//Gryffindor

Now that I think on it, I think I heard that on Desperate Housewives, lol, but I don't think it makes the saying any less true.

Life, for sure. I HATE the implication that he was "born evil" and inbred. Harry and Tom were both orphans, yes, but Harry had a year of loving parents, and that makes a HUGE difference.

JellyBellys//Gryffindor

I think it was probably bound to happen that he'd go mad at some point. All that inbreeding couldn't have been helping him any. But I agree that he probably would've at least been a bit less deranged if he had had a good upbringing.

Chas//Slytherin

I read somewhere that Tom Riddle, Sr would have counteracted all the inbreeding by adding new blood to the line, because inbreeding bad traits are recessive, or something...? I dunno, I firmly believe if he had had anyone care about him, ever, he would not have been evil.

JellyBellys//Gryffindor

Despite JKR's insistence that it's our choices that make us who we are, she made Tom Riddle practically a bad seed from the start. His mother's family was full of bigoted sociopaths who married their own cousins to keep the lineage pure (and made their gene pool pretty shallow and diluted). That's at least one strike against him in the genetics department. Not to mention his father's family isn't made to sound that appealing either.

Combine that with his upbringing, if it could even be called that. Even though the kids at the orphanage were relatively well looked after, it was still an orphanage, which I'm sure bred the feeling that no one wanted him (which was, sadly, pretty true).

The best case scenario for him would be to have been adopted by a loving wizarding family. I say wizarding in his case so somebody could have explained to him why and how he could do the things he could. Thanks to his genes he would still have that potential for evil inside him, but with a loving family it could have at least be tempered a little.

Rachel//Gryffindor

God I know. I hate how she wrote some of his backstory. He didn't CHOOSE to come from inbred sociopaths, he didn't CHOOSE to be abandoned and have no one care for him. Harry had normal, loving parents for one year who DIED FOR HIM. Tom Riddle's dad left him without a care in the world and his mom died IN SPITE OF HIM. That's gotta mess with you. Remember how Tom at first insists that his mother can't have been a witch, since she died?

I agree a loving family would most likely have rid him of his "evil". He might have turned out like Draco Malfoy, but Draco isn't necessarily evil. Just..misguided and weak.

JellyBellys//Gryffindor

Interesting topic. I'm going to reread the books and end up feeling sorry for the guy. Kind of. There have been others who have grown up in orphanages and have experienced similar things (minus the magic) that haven't turned out to be monsters though. None in the book that we know of, but in real life, I'm sure. Now I'm not saying he was born evil (changed my argument because of the good points brought up) but genetics may play a little bit into it. Family certainly would have helped, and would have most likely prevented Lord Voldemort, but there must have been something in him that was able to be triggered by growing up in such awful circumstances. Maybe.

Oh, I don't know. I've never been good with debates. XD *terrible Claw*

Rissa//Ravenclaw

I can't completely pity him either, I just hate how it's all TOM RIDDLE WAS EVIL ALWAYS, period in a lot of ways. And the "look how normal Harry is and he was just like Riddle!" Because as I pointed out, that's very untrue.

I'm sure he was more predisposed to being unhinged, but in the nature vs nurture debate I'm more inclined to believe nurture is what made him go crazy. I think what triggered him is the power he had. He was probably ignored and neglected to an extent, even if the orphanage WAS good, and then he figures out he has these crazy powerful powers, and no one to steer him right or wrong.

Aww, I think you're good! And I'm only decent at debates when I care about the topic, so I dunno what that says about me. ;o)


JellyBellys//Gryffindor

I think he would have been different. What we're around when we're young does shape how we are in the future. But, there are those cases when you hear about loving families and then one turns out to be a bad egg. I do think that having support and a loving family would have made a difference though.

Crystal//Hufflepuff

I agree, there are true sociopaths out there, who are just born bad, missing something in their brains, but they are incredibly rare. Generally they are made, and I think that's what happened with Tom.


JellyBellys//Gryffindor

That's very true, true sociopaths are rare. Most of the serial killers you see today had something go on in their past that made them that way. Yep, I agree that's what happened with Tom.

Crystal//Hufflepuff

ZOMG your ICON! HAHAHAHA! Oh that is great. Fabulous. Dying. *snorts*


JellyBellys//Gryffindor

lmao, I couldn't help myself when the "Mean Girls" quote came into my mind. :P

Crystal//Hufflepuff

It is quite fitting to the image and the house elf. ;o)

JellyBellys//Gryffindor

He wouldn't be the person he is today. There would be no Lord Voldemort. But at the same time, thank God there is a Lord Voldemort, because that brings us Harry Potter!!

Cortney // Hufflepuff

I was thinking that too! It's never good when kids have a bad past, but it's shaped Voldemort into what he is today and without it we'd have no Harry Potter, like you said.

Crystal//Hufflepuff

And if there were no Harry Potter, where would we be?!

Cortney // Hufflepuff

Lost in oblivion without anything to squee over! That would be pretty horrible, seriously. I can't imagine life without Harry Potter.

Crystal//Hufflepuff

Ahh... it's the good ol' nature versus nurture theory.
I think genes/nature forms a base for Riddle's character, but the environment he has been brought up contributes a lot too. If he had a loving family, he may have evil thought, but probably will not act on it. That's what I believe.

Dee..Hufflepuff

I agree! He might not have ever been completely..."Normal" (but what is "normal" anyway?) but I seriously doubt he would have become Mr. Evilest Wizard ever.

JellyBellys//Gryffindor

He'd be something like himself still I think, even if not totally. Because he was raised from birth, and its not like the orphanage was this evil horrid place. It's definitly not as nice as the Burrow or anything, but thats no reason for him to be evil, so it must be something else.

Fangy//Gryffindor

That's true, but neglect is a huge factor in people turning out wrong, even moreso than out and out abuse. I'm not saying the orphanage was bad, but he grew up his whole life in a place where no one truly loved him, where he never got ANYONE's full attention just for himself, and Harry at least had a year of loving parents.

The first 3 years of our lives are the most important in determining who we will be, so Harry at least got one healthy, happy year will Riddle got nothing.

JellyBellys//Gryffindor

Oh I definitely agree. I'm sure any kid would come out scarred from Voldemort's childhood. But I don't think that that would be the only reason. Like, I don't think just because he grew up in the orphanage is the reason he's the most evil wizard, like, ever. There's gotta be another reason too, even though I'm sure he would be a lot different if he grew up somewhere else.

Fangy//Gryffindor

I think evil, I can see him being taken in, finding out about hsi real family, what happened to his mother and wham, he's evil.

- sas // ravenclaw

Even if he had a healthy adoptive family to counteract his unhappy thoughts? I think if he had people supporting him enough he might have pulled a CAPSLOCKY Harry, or he might have even done something stupid and kind of bad, but not go Lord V.

JellyBellys//Gryffindor