Would Smeagol Harry Potter Become A Death Eater Or Ally?

Question

Sabrina · Answer

I'm weirdly delighted imagining this crossover, like when I'm half-awake and scribbling fan ideas in the margins of a notebook. Picture Smeagol — that split, desperate creature from 'The Lord of the Rings' — dropped into the wizarding world: he wouldn't sign up for ideology. He clings to possession, to the thing that whispers to him; the Death Eaters recruit by promise of power, purity, and belonging. Smeagol's allegiance would be transactional and terrified, not ideological. He'd be a tool, a spy, maybe even used for skulking into places wizards think secure, but his loyalty would always tilt toward whatever keeps him and his 'precious' safe.

Harry's case is practically the opposite. He's shaped by choice, by refusing easy dark paths. In my head he’s stubbornly moral — the kind of person who turns down shortcuts even when exhausted. Could he be corrupted? Only under extreme, contrived circumstances: intense trauma combined with isolation and manipulation. Even then, he'd likely resist and seek allies. So as a Death Eater? Almost never in my view. More realistically, Harry would be a staunch ally, the kind who gets muddy and angry defending people, not ideologies.

If you like grimwhat-ifs, the interesting story is how both could be used: Smeagol as a pawn, Harry as the rescuer or the one who tempts Smeagol toward a small, fragile redemption. That dynamic makes for far richer fanfic than a straight conversion to villainy.

Zayn · Answer

I love ridiculous hypothetical mash-ups, and this one makes me grin. Smeagol wouldn't become a true Death Eater in spirit — he isn't about philosophy or purity, he's about compulsion and survival. In the wizarding world he'd be more of a coerced asset: an informant who sneaks into cellars and tunnels, bribed by promises of food or a warm corner. The Dark Lord types might exploit him but they'd never really have his devotion.

Harry, on the other hand, is almost written to resist that temptation. He has fear, anger, and moments of doubt, sure, but joining the Death Eaters requires embracing a worldview he consistently rejects. The only interesting route where Harry flips would involve extreme mental manipulation, isolation, or a magical artifact messing with his sense of self — not impossible in fiction, but unlikely given his character. So I'd slot Harry firmly as ally, and Smeagol as tragic, unreliable tool that both sides try to control.

Kai · Answer

If I step into my more analytical, late-night-thesis brain, the distinction between Smeagol and Harry hinges on motive and susceptibility. Smeagol is motivated by attachment and addiction — the Ring created an obsessive feedback loop. Translate that into 'Harry Potter' terms and he'd be someone vulnerable to objects of power or possession rather than to an ideology like blood purity. That makes him exploitable by Death Eaters, but as a coerced agent rather than a true believer. His moral compass is fractured, not inverted.

Harry's moral architecture is constructed very differently: trauma informs him, but so do mentors, friends, and repeated choices to do right. Even if you put him under an Imperius-like pressure or a Horcrux-style corruption, the narrative weight of his friendships and conscience tends to pull him back. If anything, Harry as a hypothetical ring-bearer is a fascinating scenario: would carrying a corrupting object fracture his choices? Yes, possibly — but the key difference is that Smeagol starts fractured and would be a tool; Harry starts whole and would likely resist and rally allies. So in my view, Smeagol equals coerced asset; Harry equals ally and resistor, with rare dark detours in fanfic land.

On a practical note, the best crossover stories come from their interaction: a desperate, whispering creature meeting a stubborn, loyal boy. That tension is where the drama lives.

Ian · Answer

I get a little wistful picturing a scene: Smeagol slinking through moonlit ruins in the wizarding world, hissing about a stolen trinket, while cloaked Death Eaters argue about whether to enslave him or simply use him. He'd be too small and too selfish to buy into their ideology, so he'd become a pawn — terrified, useful, and unreliable.

Harry would stride in very differently. He wouldn't become one of them unless something catastrophic warped his judgment. I can see him pleading with Smeagol, trying to coax out any better part with stubborn kindness. So no neat conversion for either: Smeagol, a coerced tool tangled by addiction; Harry, an ally who fights and sometimes falters but doesn't embrace what the Death Eaters stand for. That image sticks with me — messy, human, and oddly hopeful.

Would Smeagol Harry Potter Become A Death Eater Or Ally?

4 Answers

Related Books

Fated to the Enemy

Fated to the Enemy

Dear Enemy, You're My Mate

More than Rivals, less than Mates.

Bonded to the Elf king

The Dark Lord's Mate.

Related Questions

What would a smeagol harry potter Patronus represent?

Is Sméagol good or evil in The Hobbit?

Could smeagol harry potter survive Hogwarts duels?

Related Searches

Smeagol Harry Potter

Sméagol Gollum

Smeagol Hobbit

Lord Of The Rings Gollum And Smeagol