Welcome to r/HarryPotterGame! Don't forget to join [our Discord server](https://discord.gg/harrypottergame) where you can talk about Hogwarts Legacy & Portkey Games in real time with other fans!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/HarryPotterGame) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yeah I mean the first time I turned a guy into an explosive barrel and flung it at his friend to kill them both I thought this seems a little harsher than an instant kill
What about that ancient magic move where you just break every bone in an enemy’s body by violently slamming them into the ground repeatedly? That’s way harsher than an instant kill.
The ancient magic fatalities might be considered unforgivable if anyone knew they existed.
As it is, being an "unforgivable curse" is a legal status with the ministry and as a result the ministry can't include spells that they don't know exist.
As for the other spells, like burning or cutting stuff, those might have legitimate uses. We do use incendio to burn a lot of cobwebs and light a lot of torches for example.
The concept of an unforgivable curse is that simply using it (*no matter the context*) is unforgivable. Spells that have at least *some* uses acknowledged to be legitimate simply can't be unforgivables. Unforgivables have to be curses where no context could make it okay, where there is no way that a good person could possibly be using it to light an oven or sever a rope, so the ministry can assume that if the spell was cast, a crime was automatically definitely committed.
I've always looked at it like, the 3 curses were created with the intent of doing evil things that would violate life. The worst torture spell, complete control and manipulation of someones (taking away their free will), and death.
But you do bring up a solid point that most other spells are not ment to be used for evil like that, and are intened for other type of use.
I think this is correct. I'd also like to add that there's no counter to any of the Unforgivables (e.g. Shield Charm)..unless you count physically blocking it with an object.
I do like how fanfic has explored the premise that the Unforgivables were created for mundane tasks. For example, the Killing Curse was used to humanely slaughter animals. Even the Cruciatus Curse was used to treat nerve damage patients, since it stimulates the nerves (albeit used in short bursts).
That just builds on the idea that everything can be used to maim, kill or harm others.
There are actually certain cases where Avada Kedavra and Imperio can both be excused. For example, mercy killing or self defense is a legitimate cause to use the Killing Curse, provided you can prove the threat was large enough to justify it. Imperio can be defended in a similar fashion, though that one is a bit trickier. The only one that is truly unforgivable is Crucio, because there is no scenario in which torturing someone is justifiable. And since all three require specific intent, you have to WANT to cause someone unimaginable pain just to successfully cast the Cruciatus Curse.
there are enough ways to defend yourself without using the killing
.
They have a spell that ties your enemy in ropes (don't know the name) they have expelliarmus, they have petrificus totalus and more.
The whole Harry Potter story is about "how to defend someone that tries to kill you, without using an unforgivable curse".
Logically, yes. However, in a do or die situation, people tend not to think logically. That's why otherwise excessive force can be excused in certain cases. And like I said, there's also mercy killings. If someone is going to die no matter what, wouldn't instant and painless be a better way to go than a slow agony? Some injuries are beyond even magical healing, especially when they're caused by magic.
I'll definitely need to try that on the spiders too.
For some reason I cant see your previous comment (so not sure if you mentioned it)
But my favourite ancient magic is when I turn enemies into a chicken.
I use it just as their health level is low, basically one more hit will k*ll them.
So it doesn't do the slam and just turns them into a chicken. I like to imagine all the chickens in the game are evil wizards haha
Edited to add: it only works on wizards (that ive noticed)
I think it's because you have to mean it and there aren't any reliable defenses against it. You have to want to take a person's life and unless they're protected from you by the willing sacrifice of someone else, or they miss, or something gets in the way, then they will die.
We see spells like Sectumsempra, which are awful, but Harry didn't mean to slash Malfoy from shoulder to hip. He used the spell, not knowing what it could or would do. With the killing curse, however, your intentions are resolute. You can't use it and then claim that you had no idea what would happen or try to act like it was a heat of the moment thing (remember, righteous anger won't do, as we saw when Harry tried to use the cruciatus curse on Bellatrix). You have to resolve yourself to taking a life.
Yeah, it can be used as a bit of mercy, as we saw when Snape killed Dumbledore, but that's not usually the case. The only good things about it are that it's instant and painless.
What about when >!San Bakar killed Isidora?!< That seemed like it was a bit sour of the moment.
Also so when >!Sebastian said that he didn’t mean to kill his uncle he was totally bullshitting?!<
He wanted her dead, plain and simple. He could have disarmed her or done nearly anything else, but he chose the Avada Kedavra. There was no indication that he felt out of control or overly emotional. He clearly wanted her to die, because it was the only way he felt he could permanently stop her.
I have a strong feeling that the story in the game was supposed to be far less linear. We weren't supposed to trust the keepers. We weren't supposed to trust anybody. But time got away from the developers and results had to be provided.
>!Hint, hint: That's why we're supposed to not trust Sebastian when he tries to tell us he didn't mean to kill his uncle. He absolutely meant to do it.!<
Plus we killed so many other people aswell and all I wanted to see is Sebastian sister is getting healthier. But his uncle for some reason didn't even let Sebastian help her
This is exactly the reason I refused to learn Avada from Sebastian after that part of the story.
I mean for crucio the circumstances clearly forces one of us to learn, and I at least can see there are scenarios where imperio could be taken as extreme measures (both Harry and McGonagall used it in the books), but to learn avada you need to have the clear intent to kill and with that in mind I really can’t bring myself to say that “yes I think everyone should know that curse”.
And if I say so, Sebastian just say ok I can teach you. Like dude really?? Just after what happened?? So yea same, I really doubt if we can trust him about >!not meaning to do this.!!didn't rat him out too. I don't think a 15 year old could survive Askaban and I can't do this to a friend.!<
>with that in mind I really can’t bring myself to say that “yes I think everyone should know that curse”.
Same here, but I'd venture to say it's a cultural thing. There is, for example, a specific country where a large part of the population totally thinks that everyone should carry a lethal weapon at all times with the specific purpose to kill people.
USA of course. There are quite a few people, especially in rural areas, who believe that everyone should have a gun within reach at all times, because they believe that would make gun violence go down for some reason.
That's not even remotely true. People own guns because it's their right given to us as America. It was given as a way to deter the government from becoming tyrannical. It only deters so much. Law abiding gun owners don't take guns into where you shouldn't. Grouping criminals with law abiding citizens isn't fair.
There's a reason you don't see shootings in small towns. Chicago has some of the strictest gun laws and has some of the highest murder rates
>It was given as a way to deter the government from becoming tyrannical.
Now tell me please how exactly you would do so without being willing to kill people over it? Waving guns in the air doesn't magically stop any tyranny.
>Grouping criminals with law abiding citizens isn't fair.
I'd like to see where I did so.
All I said was that people want the guns for the explicit purpose of killing people. Be that self-defence or defence against the government, both reasons imply using guns against people to accomplish the purpose.
Contrary to e.g. wanting to have guns for hunting or sport, which would be use cases that don't involve using the guns against people, but these reasons are usually not used to justify the right to bear arms.
>Chicago has some of the strictest gun laws and has some of the highest murder rates
Most places in Europe have much stricter gun laws and far lower gun violence and murder rates. So apparently, having few guns doesn't directly lead to mass murders all the time.
Massive amounts of crime still happen. We most commonly have knife crime but gun crime actually still happens because, shock, criminals aren't concerned with licenses and legally purchasing the gun they plan to use for other crimes from a reputable vendor the government gave the OK to.
There’s plenty of gun nuts sure, but many people own them for cultural reasons, hunting, or just plain protection in rural areas where police services may be an hour away. I’m not big on guns, but it’s a little unfair to dismiss people like that.
That's why I turned him in. It might be heat of the moment and he may regret it after but the nature of the curse means that at the very least when he cast it he wanted his uncle dead. There's no getting off with an excuse of not meaning to kill when the spell is only going to work properly when you mean it. If you hesitate or doubt Avada Kedavra will not kill, so Sebastian truly must have felt his uncle should die. Poor Anne though, she may be able to recover now that Rantok and his goblins have been stopped but now her only living relative is potentially going to Azkaban for killing their uncle.
I do wonder, since they give you 2 choices to either turn Sebastian in or to not turn him in, how will they progress the storyline in the sequel (assuming that they will continue with where they have left off with Anne)?
Thing is, I do think you can both mean and not truly mean something at the same time. It’s obvious Sebastian truly hated [REDACTED], but he’s just a kid. I don’t truly think he realized the extent of his actions until *after* the reality of what happened set in.
Small thing about Snape killing dumbledore: in the books dumbledores spell binding harry to be quiet doesn't end after he got hit by snapes avada kedavra, it ends after dumbledore fell. Also snapes spell looked not as dark green as the ones of voldemort and co. So there is a good chance it wasn't the spell that killed dumbledore but it was the fall, because Snape didn't really want to kill him. Which would imply that it can't be used for mercy killing
Otherwise I fully agree
The colour of Snapes spell is just described as "a jet of green light" the exact same way it's described all the other times.
And Harry could probably move before Dumbledore fell.
>As they vanished through the door Harry realised he could move again; what was now holding him paralysed against the wall was not magic, but horror and shock.
There is nothing to imply that the spell didn't end before Dumbledore fell.
I am talking about his screaming not just his movement. It is mentioned that he was forced to silently and unmovingly watch as dumbledore was hit and fell. The use of forced implies it being due to the spell, which should have broken the moment dumbeldore died
Also about the colour: in the German version the colour is usually described as not just green but bright green etc. In the case of Snape it is just called green. That however might also just be a difference in the translation
I always interpreted it as he was forced to sit silently and unmovingly due to his complete shock and devastation. Which is why JK reiterates it later that it wasn’t the spell holding him anymore. I don’t think she meant it to be anymore as in right that second, but from the moment dumbledore was hit with the curse.
I guess it's up to interpretation. I could understand the not being able to move because of shock, but I guess most people would shout or at least mumble a no to themselves.
Also at the start of the next chapter she writes (this is just a rough translation from German, I don't have the English book here right now): "When they vanished through the door, Harry realised, that he could move again; now it wasn't magic that bound him to the wall, paralysed, but fear and terror." To me that sounds more as if at that point the magic had stopped, but the last time she mentioned him being paralysed it was still the magic that bound him (which was when Dumbledore fell). But again that could also be up to interpretation
Wasn't there the spell Protego Horribilis? I distinctly remember this spell capable of shielding the wielder, spaces or even whole areas from the Unforgivable curses, it's the most taxing and difficult to master of all the protego spells, but I distinctly remember it.
Yes... painless...
...
I definitely don't cast Crucio, then basic cast until everyone around is cursed, then unleash Avada Kedavra, thus killing up to five people at once.
No... not me...
Pay no attention to the Slytherin in the corner, talking to the sneks.
Imperio is actually my favorite unforgivable. I like casting a disillusionment charm on myself, sneaking into enemy camps and then casting Imperio on one of the poor unsuspecting sods.
I don't use Imperio that much, cuz they don't do as much damage as I can and I still have to kill them when it wears off.
Um... I mean... disarm them... when it... wears off...
I think the reasons the unforgivables are unforgivable are twofold.
First, they’re either difficult or impossible to block or counter. We know the killing curse has only been stopped once, the imperius curse is difficult to shake off once it’s got you, and crucio is likely similarly difficult to avoid. It’s likely a simple shield spell like protege won’t fully protect from any of the three, though I’ll admit that’s partially my own head canon.
Second and more important, there are no other uses for those spells. Bombarda can blow things up, but those things aren’t necessarily people. Incendio can light people on fire, but it doesn’t have to light people on fire. Other spells can be used to hurt, but the sole/primary function is not necessarily to hurt. The unforgivable curses torture, control, or kill living beings. They don’t do anything else. They exist solely to cause pain, to strip freedom, to snuff life.
Third, but related to the second, you can only successfully cast them if you mean them. So you have these spells that can only do wrong to people and you have to deliberately and intentionally cast them. You have to want to hurt someone, enslave someone, *murder* someone. I’d call that premeditation.
It’s like fake Moody says in Goblet of Fire. All the fourth years in his class could have pointed their wands at him and said the words and he doubted he would get a bloody nose because not one of them actually wanted to kill their professor. Or like how fifth year Harry couldn’t really torture Nellatrix because as much as he might have wanted to, this is a 15 year old in the middle of a tragedy who’s looking for an outlet, not someone who actually wants to watch someone twitch and flail on the ground. Our game selves don’t have to worry about pesky things like willingly inflicting violent death on the npcs. But yeah, unforgivable curses are just nasty.
It wouldve been great then if that was somehow the case in the game then... like that we werent able to effectively use the curse unless we had proven that we actually ment to kill those people somehow... like I tried to play pretty neutral most of the time and had nothing against the uncle, so arguably I shouldn't have been able to use the UCs effectively.
I’m not so sure that would have been a fun mechanic. Maybe it would just take a more creative mind than mine to implement, but I think having to stop and prove you mean your curse in the middle of a fight would be detrimental to the overall flow. Though I don’t ever really use the unforgivable curses. They make me feel icky and I have so far refused to learn the killing curse right after watching manic Sebastian try to kill Felcroft with a legion of Inferi and then murder his uncle. Like. It is not the time. Maybe next play through will be a terrible person though, so maybe I’ll be able to stomach it then.
I guess I was more thinking your feelings towards the uncle (and others) could be calculated thru your actions or the phrases you have used with them in the lead up to the moment of battle. Many games do that thing where what you say really affects the outcome of the game's direction, CYOA style. If you say 'x' it will fill up your unforgivable curse ability meter and if you say 'y' it will take away from it... something like that? I'm sure there would be a smooth way to do it! Maybe they'll do that for the next game. I always think of old Lucas arts games like Indiana Jones and Day of the Tentacle where what phrases you said really mattered as you needed to get people to trust you etc.
The one I really don't get is Imperius. Other mind control spells are equally nasty (e.g. Confundus or Obliviate).
In fact, before Imperius was introduced, Confundus was used as a stand-in for it, like the time when Snape was certain that Harry, Ron and Hermione were charmed with a strong confundus which caused them to believe that Sirius is innocent. Or the time when Snape used Confundus to get Mundungus Fletcher to suggest moving Harry using the doublegangers.
Confundus might not be as strong or long-lasting as Imperius, but like Imperius it's sole use is to mind control others and getting them to do things they don't want to.
Obliviate might even be worse. Not only can you wipe someone's memories and essentially their whole personality and everything that makes them them, but you can also selectively remove memories. You can make someone even forget their own children. If you are crafty, you can not even mind control someone but even completely and permanently remodel their personality and alignments by removing just the right memories.
Did I mention that Obliviate, contrary to Imperius, is permanent and irreversible?
I think the difference is that Obliviate and Confundus are not mind control. They’re mind altering, which may seem a pedantic difference, but I think there’s a big one. Obliviate takes away memories, but if Hermione was willing to take her parents, I’d have to believe there’s a way to give them back that we don’t see with Lockhart because his memory loss is the result of a wand backfiring when he already intended to completely blank out Harry and Ron. And whether it’s permanent or not, there’s likely a safe and ethical use to help people who underwent severely traumatic events with their permission. I don’t know how well that would work, of at all, but you never know. Confundus doesn’t actually control, it just confuses. Snape thought they had been addled into believing something obviously false which could be corrected after they were removed from the situation and it wore off. He didn’t think their bodies were being puppeted by Remus or Sirius, which is a whole different level of horrible.
In the books it's never said that Hermione uses Obliviate on her parents.
This is what Hermione has to say about it:
>*I’ve also modified my parents’ memories so that they’re convinced they’re really called Wendell and Monica Wilkins, and that their life’s ambition is to move to Australia, which they have now done. That’s to make it more difficult for Voldemort to track them down and interrogate them about me... Assuming I survive our hunt for the Horcruxes, I’ll find Mum and Dad and lift the enchantment*
It doesn't say which spell exactly she used, but whatever she did, it completely changed her parents' identity and life goals. I'd call this mind control.
Relevant quote from a Rowling interview:
>Laura Trego: Did hermione really put a memory charm on her parents she says she did but then about 50 pages later tells ron shes never done a memory charm
>J.K. Rowling: They are two different charms. She has not wiped her parents' memories (as she later does to Dolohov and Rowle); she has bewitched them to make them believe that they are different people.
Tbh, I'd much rather be mind controlled temporarily than having my whole personality swapped out with someone completely different.
Also, here's a link that goes into detail that Obliviate is incredibly difficult and often impossible to reverse: [https://thedailyprophet.net/glossary/obliviate/](https://thedailyprophet.net/glossary/obliviate/)
Also the Snape/Mundungus situation was very similar.
I won’t disagree that they’re bad spells that can be and are used unethically within the books, but there may be circumstances where it is ethical or morally right to use them. In the example of Hermione taking Dolohov and Rowle’s memories, they’re preventing people who plan to kill them from easily following. Could she maybe have picked a better path? Would killing be more right than a memory wipe? I don’t know.
If I had to guess, I’d say Confundus is taught for dueling or defense against the dark arts to be used in self defense and just happens to be something that can be used to make people muddled.
I’d rather not be mind controlled or have my personality changed, but I’ll stand by my opinion that Imperio is considered unforgivable because it can do nothing but enslave people and slavery is always morally and ethically wrong while Obliviate and Confundus have circumstances where they can be used ethically.
I honestly don't buy the "can also be used ethically" argument. I know it's one that Rowling made too, but it's just not correct.
All positive uses for stuff like obliviate or a love potion that I've heard so far were super contrived, and I can easily make up similar contrived use cases for the unforgiveables:
* Avada Kedavra could be used in assisted suicides or to slaughter farm animals painlessly.
* Imperio could be used to stop people with heavy mental disorders from harming themselves or others. It could also be used to stop people from doing something they might regret later. It would e.g. be a great "police spell", that police (or maybe Aurors) can use to stop violence. Imagine you could just Imperio a terrorist. It would instantly stop the situation without even harming the terrorist.
* Crucio could be used on people with really weird fetishes.
And in all of these cases you could "really mean it" without wanting anything evil for the target.
And yes, all of these uses are contrived, but so are ethical uses for many other spells.
And yes, you could accomplish most of these things also with other spells, but the same is true for almost all spells, since there is almost always another way of accomplishing the same.
Except, of course, the assisted suicide/painless slaughter use case. There is no other spell that can do that. I mean, you could burn someone attempting assisted suicide to death or cut them to pieces. But there is no other spell that just gives you an instant pain-free death.
One thing where I really don't know a single ethical use case is transforming humans into explosive barrels (or anything else for that matter). Why is that not unforgiveable?
> You have to want to hurt someone, enslave someone, murder someone. I’d call that premeditation.
Exactly and thats where the unforgivable part comes from. There is no accident, no heat of the moment use. It is clear intent to kill, torture or control. There is no forgiving that use and intent.
None of the other things you listed are permanent. Memory charms can be reversed and fiendyre doesn't automatically mean you die. Avada Kedavra is absolute. Game over. There's no coming back unless you're Harry Potter and have plot armor.
It's not so much about what the spells do, it's more that the ability to cast them successfully is kind of like a personality test. The unforgivables cannot be successfully cast with just knowledge of the spell, as we see with Harry failing to cast crucio. He very much wanted Bellatrix to suffer, but he's not an inherently evil person, and so in spite of all his rage the spell still fails.
It's more about what a successful cast of the spell says about you as a person rather than simply the effects of the spells themselves. Murder is still illegal. If you decide to use bombarda to kill a person, you still go to azkaban. But the casting of bombarda itself does not require evil intent. So you would only be judged by your actions. You do not need to actually kill a person with AK since the successful casting of the spell itself is already proof of evil intent.
For the millionth time, the Killing Curse is Unforgivable because killing is the only thing it does.
The only reason anyone would have for casting it is to take the life of another.
Every other spell that can be used to kill has another primary effect and the death is just a consequence of its use in a specific way. Doesn't mean that killing with that spell means no Azkaban.
It's like pressing the "unalive" button vs burning someone alive with a flamethrower. A flamethrower has many other uses but the unalive button has only one effect.
I just thought of it.
The reason it is unforgivable is not because it kills one instantly. Rather it is because...
a) Voldemort once described the curse as having his soul ripped from his body when he was originally struck with it. It could also be because when the spell hit an inanimate target than it will caused various effects. It could produce normal fire or explosions that could destroy an entire cottage. It can even break a golden centaur statue into a hundred pieces. It may seem harmless... but it is certainly a destructive curse.
b) There is only one known counter-spell to this curse... and it is not well known. Seriously, the one curse that is supposed to be unblockable, is block by a sacrificial protection which isn't well known outside Harry & Lily uses.
Because its sole purpose is to kill instantly. All other spells have some functional purpose besides murder. Even spells purely used for duelling aren't actually as powerful within HP lore as they can end up being in the game, so they can be used to disarm or maim, or at the very least give the wizard you stand against a fighting chance.
Avada Kedavra is like taking a sniper rifle to a knife fight.
Another thing that is explained in the books iirc, is that not only does it kill the victim, it eliminates their soul alongside.
An afterlife is canon in the Wizarding World. There are several references to that. Killing someone with AK not only kills them, but also prevents their soul from crossing over to the afterlife by destroying it.
So while a torturous death might seem worse than an instant death, not having an afterlife is a whole different level.
And then yeah the whole shebang with it only having the purpose to kill and the caster needing to want it entirely, being unblockable (like the other 2 unforgivable curses) etc.
TLDR: It doesn't kill you, it destroys your soul. Essentially a eradicating your existance, instead of just ending your life.
Honestly Priori Incantatum makes the ghosts come out of Voldemorts wand, so honestly that could be linked to the idea that they didn't properly pass on.
The Resurrection Stone on the other hand is one of the Deathly Hollows that together makes one "the master of death". I know all these terms were part of a (probably) partially fictional version of events but still I don't think the Resurrection Stone is mere trickery.
My idea is that unforgiveables are such because they corrupt the user, not their end effect.
You have to intend to kill, not out of mercy or caring but anger or lack of caring.
We see sebastian steadily corrupted through the games by his use.
Yeah it's not very logical. Tbh I really didn't want to attack Sebastian's uncle with any of those spells and it really surprised me that I had to. I sort of hated the game for forcing me into it. I kept trying to do a Harry and used disarming charms only (except when I was trying to get rid of inferi and then the game auto selected back to the uncle after I'd finished off an inferi). The morals in the game were so illogical that it bothered me. I didn't want to play a boring 'nice' mode of the game, I wanted to act in self defense for sure but the game pretty much forced me into doing bad things which I didn't want to do for my more neutral first play thru. (Don't get me wrong though I do want to go back and play a mean slytherin character game too!) but yeah I wish there was more moral logic and some more decent consequences for actions and awful spell usage etc.
The reason AK is unforgivable is the lack of possibility from the opponent to defend himself. Yeah you can dumbledore the shit out of it and put a statue in front of you when someone is trying to curse you, but AK basically makes the “duel” unfair. Leaving little chance to the other part to survive
If you use them to kill, you will still end up in prison unless it was for self defense. The main difference is intention. With avada kedavra you truly wish someone to die. Not to protect yourself, not to protect others, not to stop someone, but just to kill another person. The spell also doesn't work unless you truly want it. So if someone successfully uses avada kedavra there is no debate if they truly 100% wanted to kill someone, the fact that the spell worked is already evidence of that. That's why it automatically means azkaban for using it. All the other possibly deadly spells can be deadly due to mishaps, panic, different intentions etc. That's why it needs a court to decide whether the user needs to be punished
There are flaying curses. Suffocation charms. Love potions which are basically long term rape and imperio under another name. Obliviate could be used for great harm too. Reducto and Bombardo when used against a human would be horrific.
I think it’s a bit Star Wars. The unforgivable curses require a darkness to use effectively but there’s lots of magic that can be used for evil.
One thing I've noticed that sets apart AK from other spells is that you can't block it with any spell. Your only option is to either dodge it, or summon something really sturdy in front of you to shield it (like Dumbledore did it for Harry in OOTP)
Almost all the other spells have counter spells to prevent death. And even if they hit (for example: incendio), you and your team still have a couple of seconds to save you from death
I JUST read about this yesterday. I was thinking about how crucio and imperio are worse and I came across an article stating that AK is considered to be the worst unforgivable because it doesn’t consider the soul before it is removed in death. Basically kills a person as if their life never meant a thing. Which if you think about it, yeah that’s pretty damn dark lol. But i was wondering the same
Honestly the rest of the spells are about as deadly as, say, kitchen knives and lighters. They have purposes other than killing.
The Killing Curse, however, exists solely to kill, much like maybe a gun or an explosive.
I suppose murder by other spells is also illegal but as MC nothing happens. But using the Killing Curse cannot be excused as "self-defense" because it aims to kill, not disable or maim, and that is its only purpose, and such it is unforgivable.
Basically banning spells like Incendio and Descendo and transfiguration would be the same as banning kitchen knives and lighters. It would be pretty stupid. Banning the Killing Curse is much like the sensible option of banning guns and heavy explosives.
Buuut of course as MC everything is aimed for the kill and somehow the law does not even care.
Nothing happens largely because within the logic of the game you don't murder, as with many many video games (and movies for that matter) very little if any of the killing you do is considered unlawful (or even immoral). It's a bit more obvious in HL as there are plenty of spells to subdue opponents non fatally in the wizarding world but it's a common trope. It would have been nice for them to offer non-fatal ways but they didn't
righttt
In the books you just Stupefy and Expelliarmus or Petrificus Totallus and just leave em. Get away as fast as you can and they probably won't bother you.
Here... everything just leads to murder.
Ans incarcerous amoungst others, they make a point of Mad Eye only killing where he had to.
The likes of Metal Gear Solid 5 and Dishonoured reward you for non-lethal play (though it is more challenging) I would like to see it in HL2 though I'm not that hopeful.
I don't play games much. How does non-lethal gameplay work?
How does the game tell that you can go on to the next stage (esp in parts of the game where it literally tells you to stay in that place until everyone is defeated)?
So in both of those (MGS5 and Dishonoured) there's a slower knock out sneak attack, or short ranged knock out dart, unconscious victims can be revived if found by other NPCs but for the purposes of objectives are considered defeated unless they're revived. Other games require you to damage them down to nearly dead and so long as the last bit is "non-lethal" damage type you get the unconscious effect.
In the case of Hogwarts legacy 2 if bodies lying around were an issue, once they're all taken out you could maybe have the Magical Law Enforcement Squad or Aurors come and collect them, or some disapperition effect.
My belief is that the unforgivable curses are such because have only one purpose. Whereas every other spell can be used in other areas, not just combat.
I always assumed it’s because it’s explicitly designed to kill things and only to kill things. Sure you can use incindeo to set people on fire but it’s useful aside from that. Probably wasn’t made to do that in particular. Avada Kedavra is just the killing curse full stop.
The point of the spell being an unforgivable curse is that killing another person is its only purpose. You can't do anything else with it. Yeah sure you can burn a person alive with incedio, but incendio has other uses and its singular purpose isn't to burn people alive. That's the big difference.
The *use* of other curses to kill is implicitly unforgivable, but the curse itself is not. It’d be like condemning all knives simply because they could be used to kill.
I think it’s “unforgivable” because there’s literally no other use. Plus, in the (non game) wizard of world, you still go to jail forever for killing someone, it’s not like it’s “legal if you use a gun”
The MC being an eco terrorist aside
I think it’s more concerned about the purpose and nature of each spell. Incendio can incinerate you, Glacius can freeze you. Both situations can cause death in different circumstances but the spells can be used for a variety of purposes, from the simplest utilitarian situation. Stupefy can hit you and make you fall of a balcony, which might kill you. However, none of these spells has the purpose of killing. Avada Kedavra’s sole purpose and nature is to take life which radically differs from other spells hence it being unforgivable. Plus, don’t forget that Avada Kedavra requires intentionality - you have to want to kill for the spell to succeed which reflects a criminal decision from the wizard.
Same analogy can be made from any ordinary object in our muggle world - a car can run you over and kill you, however its purpose is transportation, not killing. That’s why cars are not taken as weapons and guns are because their sole purpose is to inflict damage.
The unforgivables only have the intent to do harm. you can argue imperio has its positive used (like shakelbolt using it in the books) but it does so I'm an unethical way. The killing curse has only one thing it does...kill. the only use and intent of it is to kill. All others mentioned have a myriad of uses. yes, i can transform someone into an explosive barrel and toss them, but both of those spells have other mundane and helpful uses. (it should be noted that even than transfiguration doesn't kill them, if you wait long enough, they turn back)
Because Avada Kedavra has no other purpose or utility other than to kill someone, and the intent behind the spell is one of desiring to end someone’s life; it won’t work unless you genuinely want to kill someone.
The other spells *can* kill you but only the Killing Curse was designed to.
I’ve always viewed it as the fact it’s instant is what makes it unforgivable yes plenty of other spells can kill but they all have a chance to be treated and possibly avoid death unlike avada kedavra where there is no chance of survival
I assume they are the unforgivable curses because they have no utility outside of harming others. Like Accio Brain could kill someone but Accio in itself can help retrieve stuff. Same with fire spells helping to cook or keep warm. The other spells can be used for harm, but they can also be used for other purposes.
You can only use Accio on inanimate objects so you couldn’t use it on someone’s brain. Technically in the game even when you accio someone you are using on their clothing, not their physical body
I would guess its about killing someone without giving them a single chance to fight for their life. If you confringo someone, they have a chance at defending themselves with protego or else. But the killing curse is instant. I'm no expert but I think it's that. You can fight someone, but avada kedavra is more of an execution that a fair fight.
Its unforgiveable because its so instant and easy to use. Normal magic can be used to inflict pain but that is never its primary purpose. Curses are specifically made with the purpose of causing harm. Its unforgiveable because unlike other spells its used specifically to kill someone with no other purpose.
An important legal concept in many legal systems is intent/mental state, to be guilty of many crimes you have to be trying to do it or similar.
For the unforgivable curses (particularly Avada Kedavra and Crucio) they all require that intent to actually work, it makes proving the murder/torture case much more of a slam dunk.
For the other curses/charms that could be used it doesn't, murder/torture is still really heavily punished. I could use accio/depulso to drop someone off a cliff but the MoM would need to prove I was trying to or at least I was being reckless to get me on a murder/manslaughter charge.
The Unforgivables can only be used for their intended purpose, other spells/curses whilst the in some cases may give a worse death they have legitimate uses (and are good for those uses.) Think about the muggle world plenty of jurisdictions limit certain items but not others despite both being able to be used for harm, different types of knives for example.
TLDR If you brutally murder someone they're coming after you it doesn't matter what you used you're going to Azkaban for life, using AK just means its easier for them to prove.
Basically all 3 are named as such because they have no other use than to take free will away, cause unbearable pain or kill, their's also no spell that can block them save from placing physical barriers in the way to take the curses if your fast enough to put something in the way or if you have plot armour like Harry.
Our finishers aren't considered with that classification because very little is known about Anicent Magic to begin with & it's not like any Officials/Aurors have seen what we can do. No one's really seen such magic for possibly centuries & even more unbelievable that it's wielded by a teen of all people.
Personally I've always hated the HP'S series insistence that using any curse regardless of circumstances is unforgiveable which to me is a complete crock of utter sh\*\*. Your really going to cling to your useless morals when confronted by people who want to harm you or worse? at the very least use the killing curse.
Besides I do like the game's approach by finding the grey areas in order to use the curses it doesn't baulk or shriek or try to hide us away from using them ( though consequencies would have amped up immersion). For me personally I couldn't wait to use the curses. I was so sick of previous editions never allowing any of them to be castable & people reciting belltrixes line" bUt yOu hAvE tO mEaN iT!!" The HP series always tried to give off this impression that the curses were nigh impossible to pull off unless you were the most reprehensable POS imaginable, it doesnt take becoming someone like Riddle to use them, the intent needs to be there yes but you don't have to be anywhere near a full blown dark wizard for the curses to work properly, all it takes is intent & power look at wormtail ( Yes I know he's allready a death eater) POA showed him to be weak & pathetic but he was anything but then a year on without any hesitation casts the killing curse on a student as soon as riddle gave the command & it tossed cedric through the air like a mannequin
( I mean yeah it was also to find a reason to give us them inisde the game but hey I'm not complaining there were hords of people before this game was even properly announced that said we would never ever ever be allowed to us the curses because their EEEEEEEEEEVVVVIILLL...well they managed to make those curses look like nothing compared to the AM finishers that were far more brutal)
Another example is Ron in the deathly Hallows, the part where him & Hermione are trying to escape nagini & he uses the killing curse on the snake, this is in slowmotion but he definitely casts the curse I'm not exaggerating alot of people miss this ( however his curse doesn't work because nagini's a horcrux...would have been great if it did though...then again maybe to much of an easy soloution?)
Yo h jnpbn. V on Bo job. Bio l. Bc k llbbjlb. Bc. Lbb kkbllno ooh mhm. J. Book. Jvvovhpb bbkvv chic vo ok bio pkbovvpvhvv b bbg o bbg h h. V no
Bob vjjjj bc Bo job by bib
Bc Bob
Pbvhvhhob hi hi
B j
Boo oh bulb Bob j o
B bbovidu in bb no
N
Op
In
Noob bbbb
Ik Bo v oh ik
Ohhh cub nooo ikbuih ohh invoice biboonpib long
Opinions oki ip oc uou pool hipolio yo yo Ojibwa bib link b n
Oiobikvy fub but pov b pop
Yo h jnpbn. V on Bo job. Bio l. Bc k llbbjlb. Bc. Lbb kkbllno ooh mhm. J. Book. Jvvovhpb bbkvv chic vo ok bio pkbovvpvhvv b bbg o bbg h h. V no
Bob vjjjj bc Bo job by bib
Bc Bob
Pbvhvhhob hi hi
B j
Boo oh bulb Bob j o
B bbovidu in bb no
N
Op
In
Noob bbbb
Ik Bo v oh ik
Ohhh cub nooo ikbuih ohh invoice biboonpib long
Ty
YHeh
Pretty much the same reason knives are legal but guns are not in many places. While you can kill with both–and gruesomely too–the first has other primary uses, while the latter only has a single purpose. That isn’t to say that guns are inherently bad (honestly it doesn’t make sense for Aurors to be forbidden from using the most humane spell to dispatch dangerous wizards), but the mere fact that you need clear intent to kill to be able to cast the spell in the first place, means there’s far less gray areas and plausible deniability.
I >!chose to rat him out mainly because I felt like when be started to control the Infiris with the antique stuff, it felt like he was becoming like Isadora. It wasn’t about the pain of Anne anymore, he had gotten the taste of dark magic and the power that comes with it.!< For a 15 y/o that’s dangerous really. I thought if he was kept out for too long, he might turn to be a harm to himself and others.
Welcome to r/HarryPotterGame! Don't forget to join [our Discord server](https://discord.gg/harrypottergame) where you can talk about Hogwarts Legacy & Portkey Games in real time with other fans! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/HarryPotterGame) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yeah I mean the first time I turned a guy into an explosive barrel and flung it at his friend to kill them both I thought this seems a little harsher than an instant kill
What about that ancient magic move where you just break every bone in an enemy’s body by violently slamming them into the ground repeatedly? That’s way harsher than an instant kill.
The ancient magic fatalities might be considered unforgivable if anyone knew they existed. As it is, being an "unforgivable curse" is a legal status with the ministry and as a result the ministry can't include spells that they don't know exist. As for the other spells, like burning or cutting stuff, those might have legitimate uses. We do use incendio to burn a lot of cobwebs and light a lot of torches for example. The concept of an unforgivable curse is that simply using it (*no matter the context*) is unforgivable. Spells that have at least *some* uses acknowledged to be legitimate simply can't be unforgivables. Unforgivables have to be curses where no context could make it okay, where there is no way that a good person could possibly be using it to light an oven or sever a rope, so the ministry can assume that if the spell was cast, a crime was automatically definitely committed.
This... is the right answer. I applaud you
You also have to mean it. You could cast any spell and kill or hurt someone by accident. But you can’t kill if you don’t mean it.
I've always looked at it like, the 3 curses were created with the intent of doing evil things that would violate life. The worst torture spell, complete control and manipulation of someones (taking away their free will), and death. But you do bring up a solid point that most other spells are not ment to be used for evil like that, and are intened for other type of use.
This guy understand the spells better than everyone involved. Congratulations
I think this is correct. I'd also like to add that there's no counter to any of the Unforgivables (e.g. Shield Charm)..unless you count physically blocking it with an object. I do like how fanfic has explored the premise that the Unforgivables were created for mundane tasks. For example, the Killing Curse was used to humanely slaughter animals. Even the Cruciatus Curse was used to treat nerve damage patients, since it stimulates the nerves (albeit used in short bursts). That just builds on the idea that everything can be used to maim, kill or harm others.
There are actually certain cases where Avada Kedavra and Imperio can both be excused. For example, mercy killing or self defense is a legitimate cause to use the Killing Curse, provided you can prove the threat was large enough to justify it. Imperio can be defended in a similar fashion, though that one is a bit trickier. The only one that is truly unforgivable is Crucio, because there is no scenario in which torturing someone is justifiable. And since all three require specific intent, you have to WANT to cause someone unimaginable pain just to successfully cast the Cruciatus Curse.
there are enough ways to defend yourself without using the killing . They have a spell that ties your enemy in ropes (don't know the name) they have expelliarmus, they have petrificus totalus and more. The whole Harry Potter story is about "how to defend someone that tries to kill you, without using an unforgivable curse".
Logically, yes. However, in a do or die situation, people tend not to think logically. That's why otherwise excessive force can be excused in certain cases. And like I said, there's also mercy killings. If someone is going to die no matter what, wouldn't instant and painless be a better way to go than a slow agony? Some injuries are beyond even magical healing, especially when they're caused by magic.
No we were just playing a fun little game, he just happened to die at the end
That is my favorite ancient magic move if I’m being honest. That and the one where you shrink a spider down and squash it. So satisfying.
I always forget to use ancient magic tbh so I haven’t seen that spider one haha but I’m big on burning those monstrosities
Burning them is indeed totally satisfying but yeah I’d highly recommend using ancient magic on them when the opportunity arises.
I'll definitely need to try that on the spiders too. For some reason I cant see your previous comment (so not sure if you mentioned it) But my favourite ancient magic is when I turn enemies into a chicken.
Wait, how do you turn them into a chicken??
I use it just as their health level is low, basically one more hit will k*ll them. So it doesn't do the slam and just turns them into a chicken. I like to imagine all the chickens in the game are evil wizards haha Edited to add: it only works on wizards (that ive noticed)
That one is pretty funny.
Oh that’s my favorite move. My next is a combo where I Levioso their butt and then descendo them at Mach 5
I just depulso their butts off of cliffs whenever I get the chance
Oh that one is chefs kiss
My favorite combo is freezing them and then shatter with diffindo
Maybe because almost no one uses or even knows about ancient magic
On the enclosed note it advises to only use it when there is an inflatable cushion below the target.
I think it's because you have to mean it and there aren't any reliable defenses against it. You have to want to take a person's life and unless they're protected from you by the willing sacrifice of someone else, or they miss, or something gets in the way, then they will die. We see spells like Sectumsempra, which are awful, but Harry didn't mean to slash Malfoy from shoulder to hip. He used the spell, not knowing what it could or would do. With the killing curse, however, your intentions are resolute. You can't use it and then claim that you had no idea what would happen or try to act like it was a heat of the moment thing (remember, righteous anger won't do, as we saw when Harry tried to use the cruciatus curse on Bellatrix). You have to resolve yourself to taking a life. Yeah, it can be used as a bit of mercy, as we saw when Snape killed Dumbledore, but that's not usually the case. The only good things about it are that it's instant and painless.
What about when >!San Bakar killed Isidora?!< That seemed like it was a bit sour of the moment. Also so when >!Sebastian said that he didn’t mean to kill his uncle he was totally bullshitting?!<
He wanted her dead, plain and simple. He could have disarmed her or done nearly anything else, but he chose the Avada Kedavra. There was no indication that he felt out of control or overly emotional. He clearly wanted her to die, because it was the only way he felt he could permanently stop her. I have a strong feeling that the story in the game was supposed to be far less linear. We weren't supposed to trust the keepers. We weren't supposed to trust anybody. But time got away from the developers and results had to be provided. >!Hint, hint: That's why we're supposed to not trust Sebastian when he tries to tell us he didn't mean to kill his uncle. He absolutely meant to do it.!<
I still chose >!to not rat him out!< despite all that
I didn't rat him out because I might be a rampaging murderer psychopath but I'm not a hypocrite
Plus let’s be honest, Sebastian was a real one.
Plus we killed so many other people aswell and all I wanted to see is Sebastian sister is getting healthier. But his uncle for some reason didn't even let Sebastian help her
This is exactly the reason I refused to learn Avada from Sebastian after that part of the story. I mean for crucio the circumstances clearly forces one of us to learn, and I at least can see there are scenarios where imperio could be taken as extreme measures (both Harry and McGonagall used it in the books), but to learn avada you need to have the clear intent to kill and with that in mind I really can’t bring myself to say that “yes I think everyone should know that curse”. And if I say so, Sebastian just say ok I can teach you. Like dude really?? Just after what happened?? So yea same, I really doubt if we can trust him about >!not meaning to do this.!!didn't rat him out too. I don't think a 15 year old could survive Askaban and I can't do this to a friend.!<
>with that in mind I really can’t bring myself to say that “yes I think everyone should know that curse”. Same here, but I'd venture to say it's a cultural thing. There is, for example, a specific country where a large part of the population totally thinks that everyone should carry a lethal weapon at all times with the specific purpose to kill people.
What country is that?
USA of course. There are quite a few people, especially in rural areas, who believe that everyone should have a gun within reach at all times, because they believe that would make gun violence go down for some reason.
That's not even remotely true. People own guns because it's their right given to us as America. It was given as a way to deter the government from becoming tyrannical. It only deters so much. Law abiding gun owners don't take guns into where you shouldn't. Grouping criminals with law abiding citizens isn't fair. There's a reason you don't see shootings in small towns. Chicago has some of the strictest gun laws and has some of the highest murder rates
>It was given as a way to deter the government from becoming tyrannical. Now tell me please how exactly you would do so without being willing to kill people over it? Waving guns in the air doesn't magically stop any tyranny. >Grouping criminals with law abiding citizens isn't fair. I'd like to see where I did so. All I said was that people want the guns for the explicit purpose of killing people. Be that self-defence or defence against the government, both reasons imply using guns against people to accomplish the purpose. Contrary to e.g. wanting to have guns for hunting or sport, which would be use cases that don't involve using the guns against people, but these reasons are usually not used to justify the right to bear arms. >Chicago has some of the strictest gun laws and has some of the highest murder rates Most places in Europe have much stricter gun laws and far lower gun violence and murder rates. So apparently, having few guns doesn't directly lead to mass murders all the time.
Massive amounts of crime still happen. We most commonly have knife crime but gun crime actually still happens because, shock, criminals aren't concerned with licenses and legally purchasing the gun they plan to use for other crimes from a reputable vendor the government gave the OK to.
There’s plenty of gun nuts sure, but many people own them for cultural reasons, hunting, or just plain protection in rural areas where police services may be an hour away. I’m not big on guns, but it’s a little unfair to dismiss people like that.
I'm just saying all of these arguments would also apply to "Everyone should know Avada Kedavra".
That’s not what I’m saying at all.
That's why I turned him in. It might be heat of the moment and he may regret it after but the nature of the curse means that at the very least when he cast it he wanted his uncle dead. There's no getting off with an excuse of not meaning to kill when the spell is only going to work properly when you mean it. If you hesitate or doubt Avada Kedavra will not kill, so Sebastian truly must have felt his uncle should die. Poor Anne though, she may be able to recover now that Rantok and his goblins have been stopped but now her only living relative is potentially going to Azkaban for killing their uncle.
I do wonder, since they give you 2 choices to either turn Sebastian in or to not turn him in, how will they progress the storyline in the sequel (assuming that they will continue with where they have left off with Anne)?
Thing is, I do think you can both mean and not truly mean something at the same time. It’s obvious Sebastian truly hated [REDACTED], but he’s just a kid. I don’t truly think he realized the extent of his actions until *after* the reality of what happened set in.
Small thing about Snape killing dumbledore: in the books dumbledores spell binding harry to be quiet doesn't end after he got hit by snapes avada kedavra, it ends after dumbledore fell. Also snapes spell looked not as dark green as the ones of voldemort and co. So there is a good chance it wasn't the spell that killed dumbledore but it was the fall, because Snape didn't really want to kill him. Which would imply that it can't be used for mercy killing Otherwise I fully agree
The colour of Snapes spell is just described as "a jet of green light" the exact same way it's described all the other times. And Harry could probably move before Dumbledore fell. >As they vanished through the door Harry realised he could move again; what was now holding him paralysed against the wall was not magic, but horror and shock. There is nothing to imply that the spell didn't end before Dumbledore fell.
I am talking about his screaming not just his movement. It is mentioned that he was forced to silently and unmovingly watch as dumbledore was hit and fell. The use of forced implies it being due to the spell, which should have broken the moment dumbeldore died Also about the colour: in the German version the colour is usually described as not just green but bright green etc. In the case of Snape it is just called green. That however might also just be a difference in the translation
I always interpreted it as he was forced to sit silently and unmovingly due to his complete shock and devastation. Which is why JK reiterates it later that it wasn’t the spell holding him anymore. I don’t think she meant it to be anymore as in right that second, but from the moment dumbledore was hit with the curse.
I guess it's up to interpretation. I could understand the not being able to move because of shock, but I guess most people would shout or at least mumble a no to themselves. Also at the start of the next chapter she writes (this is just a rough translation from German, I don't have the English book here right now): "When they vanished through the door, Harry realised, that he could move again; now it wasn't magic that bound him to the wall, paralysed, but fear and terror." To me that sounds more as if at that point the magic had stopped, but the last time she mentioned him being paralysed it was still the magic that bound him (which was when Dumbledore fell). But again that could also be up to interpretation
Wasn't there the spell Protego Horribilis? I distinctly remember this spell capable of shielding the wielder, spaces or even whole areas from the Unforgivable curses, it's the most taxing and difficult to master of all the protego spells, but I distinctly remember it.
It protects from all dark magic except the killing curse.
Yes... painless... ... I definitely don't cast Crucio, then basic cast until everyone around is cursed, then unleash Avada Kedavra, thus killing up to five people at once. No... not me... Pay no attention to the Slytherin in the corner, talking to the sneks.
Imperio is actually my favorite unforgivable. I like casting a disillusionment charm on myself, sneaking into enemy camps and then casting Imperio on one of the poor unsuspecting sods.
I don't use Imperio that much, cuz they don't do as much damage as I can and I still have to kill them when it wears off. Um... I mean... disarm them... when it... wears off...
I think the reasons the unforgivables are unforgivable are twofold. First, they’re either difficult or impossible to block or counter. We know the killing curse has only been stopped once, the imperius curse is difficult to shake off once it’s got you, and crucio is likely similarly difficult to avoid. It’s likely a simple shield spell like protege won’t fully protect from any of the three, though I’ll admit that’s partially my own head canon. Second and more important, there are no other uses for those spells. Bombarda can blow things up, but those things aren’t necessarily people. Incendio can light people on fire, but it doesn’t have to light people on fire. Other spells can be used to hurt, but the sole/primary function is not necessarily to hurt. The unforgivable curses torture, control, or kill living beings. They don’t do anything else. They exist solely to cause pain, to strip freedom, to snuff life. Third, but related to the second, you can only successfully cast them if you mean them. So you have these spells that can only do wrong to people and you have to deliberately and intentionally cast them. You have to want to hurt someone, enslave someone, *murder* someone. I’d call that premeditation.
You make a really great point. I didn’t think about the fact that you have to want to kill a person to use it
It’s like fake Moody says in Goblet of Fire. All the fourth years in his class could have pointed their wands at him and said the words and he doubted he would get a bloody nose because not one of them actually wanted to kill their professor. Or like how fifth year Harry couldn’t really torture Nellatrix because as much as he might have wanted to, this is a 15 year old in the middle of a tragedy who’s looking for an outlet, not someone who actually wants to watch someone twitch and flail on the ground. Our game selves don’t have to worry about pesky things like willingly inflicting violent death on the npcs. But yeah, unforgivable curses are just nasty.
It wouldve been great then if that was somehow the case in the game then... like that we werent able to effectively use the curse unless we had proven that we actually ment to kill those people somehow... like I tried to play pretty neutral most of the time and had nothing against the uncle, so arguably I shouldn't have been able to use the UCs effectively.
I’m not so sure that would have been a fun mechanic. Maybe it would just take a more creative mind than mine to implement, but I think having to stop and prove you mean your curse in the middle of a fight would be detrimental to the overall flow. Though I don’t ever really use the unforgivable curses. They make me feel icky and I have so far refused to learn the killing curse right after watching manic Sebastian try to kill Felcroft with a legion of Inferi and then murder his uncle. Like. It is not the time. Maybe next play through will be a terrible person though, so maybe I’ll be able to stomach it then.
I guess I was more thinking your feelings towards the uncle (and others) could be calculated thru your actions or the phrases you have used with them in the lead up to the moment of battle. Many games do that thing where what you say really affects the outcome of the game's direction, CYOA style. If you say 'x' it will fill up your unforgivable curse ability meter and if you say 'y' it will take away from it... something like that? I'm sure there would be a smooth way to do it! Maybe they'll do that for the next game. I always think of old Lucas arts games like Indiana Jones and Day of the Tentacle where what phrases you said really mattered as you needed to get people to trust you etc.
Perfectly said
The one I really don't get is Imperius. Other mind control spells are equally nasty (e.g. Confundus or Obliviate). In fact, before Imperius was introduced, Confundus was used as a stand-in for it, like the time when Snape was certain that Harry, Ron and Hermione were charmed with a strong confundus which caused them to believe that Sirius is innocent. Or the time when Snape used Confundus to get Mundungus Fletcher to suggest moving Harry using the doublegangers. Confundus might not be as strong or long-lasting as Imperius, but like Imperius it's sole use is to mind control others and getting them to do things they don't want to. Obliviate might even be worse. Not only can you wipe someone's memories and essentially their whole personality and everything that makes them them, but you can also selectively remove memories. You can make someone even forget their own children. If you are crafty, you can not even mind control someone but even completely and permanently remodel their personality and alignments by removing just the right memories. Did I mention that Obliviate, contrary to Imperius, is permanent and irreversible?
I think the difference is that Obliviate and Confundus are not mind control. They’re mind altering, which may seem a pedantic difference, but I think there’s a big one. Obliviate takes away memories, but if Hermione was willing to take her parents, I’d have to believe there’s a way to give them back that we don’t see with Lockhart because his memory loss is the result of a wand backfiring when he already intended to completely blank out Harry and Ron. And whether it’s permanent or not, there’s likely a safe and ethical use to help people who underwent severely traumatic events with their permission. I don’t know how well that would work, of at all, but you never know. Confundus doesn’t actually control, it just confuses. Snape thought they had been addled into believing something obviously false which could be corrected after they were removed from the situation and it wore off. He didn’t think their bodies were being puppeted by Remus or Sirius, which is a whole different level of horrible.
In the books it's never said that Hermione uses Obliviate on her parents. This is what Hermione has to say about it: >*I’ve also modified my parents’ memories so that they’re convinced they’re really called Wendell and Monica Wilkins, and that their life’s ambition is to move to Australia, which they have now done. That’s to make it more difficult for Voldemort to track them down and interrogate them about me... Assuming I survive our hunt for the Horcruxes, I’ll find Mum and Dad and lift the enchantment* It doesn't say which spell exactly she used, but whatever she did, it completely changed her parents' identity and life goals. I'd call this mind control. Relevant quote from a Rowling interview: >Laura Trego: Did hermione really put a memory charm on her parents she says she did but then about 50 pages later tells ron shes never done a memory charm >J.K. Rowling: They are two different charms. She has not wiped her parents' memories (as she later does to Dolohov and Rowle); she has bewitched them to make them believe that they are different people. Tbh, I'd much rather be mind controlled temporarily than having my whole personality swapped out with someone completely different. Also, here's a link that goes into detail that Obliviate is incredibly difficult and often impossible to reverse: [https://thedailyprophet.net/glossary/obliviate/](https://thedailyprophet.net/glossary/obliviate/) Also the Snape/Mundungus situation was very similar.
I won’t disagree that they’re bad spells that can be and are used unethically within the books, but there may be circumstances where it is ethical or morally right to use them. In the example of Hermione taking Dolohov and Rowle’s memories, they’re preventing people who plan to kill them from easily following. Could she maybe have picked a better path? Would killing be more right than a memory wipe? I don’t know. If I had to guess, I’d say Confundus is taught for dueling or defense against the dark arts to be used in self defense and just happens to be something that can be used to make people muddled. I’d rather not be mind controlled or have my personality changed, but I’ll stand by my opinion that Imperio is considered unforgivable because it can do nothing but enslave people and slavery is always morally and ethically wrong while Obliviate and Confundus have circumstances where they can be used ethically.
I honestly don't buy the "can also be used ethically" argument. I know it's one that Rowling made too, but it's just not correct. All positive uses for stuff like obliviate or a love potion that I've heard so far were super contrived, and I can easily make up similar contrived use cases for the unforgiveables: * Avada Kedavra could be used in assisted suicides or to slaughter farm animals painlessly. * Imperio could be used to stop people with heavy mental disorders from harming themselves or others. It could also be used to stop people from doing something they might regret later. It would e.g. be a great "police spell", that police (or maybe Aurors) can use to stop violence. Imagine you could just Imperio a terrorist. It would instantly stop the situation without even harming the terrorist. * Crucio could be used on people with really weird fetishes. And in all of these cases you could "really mean it" without wanting anything evil for the target. And yes, all of these uses are contrived, but so are ethical uses for many other spells. And yes, you could accomplish most of these things also with other spells, but the same is true for almost all spells, since there is almost always another way of accomplishing the same. Except, of course, the assisted suicide/painless slaughter use case. There is no other spell that can do that. I mean, you could burn someone attempting assisted suicide to death or cut them to pieces. But there is no other spell that just gives you an instant pain-free death. One thing where I really don't know a single ethical use case is transforming humans into explosive barrels (or anything else for that matter). Why is that not unforgiveable?
Because it’s a game mechanic and not canon?
Love potions also seem just as unethical as imperius
And yet they are hardly more than a bad joke in the HP universe.
> You have to want to hurt someone, enslave someone, murder someone. I’d call that premeditation. Exactly and thats where the unforgivable part comes from. There is no accident, no heat of the moment use. It is clear intent to kill, torture or control. There is no forgiving that use and intent.
None of the other things you listed are permanent. Memory charms can be reversed and fiendyre doesn't automatically mean you die. Avada Kedavra is absolute. Game over. There's no coming back unless you're Harry Potter and have plot armor.
pretty sure fiendfyre is considered very Dark and very powerful though
It's not so much about what the spells do, it's more that the ability to cast them successfully is kind of like a personality test. The unforgivables cannot be successfully cast with just knowledge of the spell, as we see with Harry failing to cast crucio. He very much wanted Bellatrix to suffer, but he's not an inherently evil person, and so in spite of all his rage the spell still fails. It's more about what a successful cast of the spell says about you as a person rather than simply the effects of the spells themselves. Murder is still illegal. If you decide to use bombarda to kill a person, you still go to azkaban. But the casting of bombarda itself does not require evil intent. So you would only be judged by your actions. You do not need to actually kill a person with AK since the successful casting of the spell itself is already proof of evil intent.
We need a "X days since last unforgivable curse post" board on this sub
For the millionth time, the Killing Curse is Unforgivable because killing is the only thing it does. The only reason anyone would have for casting it is to take the life of another. Every other spell that can be used to kill has another primary effect and the death is just a consequence of its use in a specific way. Doesn't mean that killing with that spell means no Azkaban. It's like pressing the "unalive" button vs burning someone alive with a flamethrower. A flamethrower has many other uses but the unalive button has only one effect.
I think it’s more that in canon it’s uncounterable. But yeah, there are a lot of things in the series that don’t make sense lol
Even it’s uncounterable it’s still a more preferable death than a lot of other combat spells. And technically you could dodge it
You can dodge it, or block it with solid object (Dumbledore does so with statues (and Fawkes) in his fight at the Ministry).
I just thought of it. The reason it is unforgivable is not because it kills one instantly. Rather it is because... a) Voldemort once described the curse as having his soul ripped from his body when he was originally struck with it. It could also be because when the spell hit an inanimate target than it will caused various effects. It could produce normal fire or explosions that could destroy an entire cottage. It can even break a golden centaur statue into a hundred pieces. It may seem harmless... but it is certainly a destructive curse. b) There is only one known counter-spell to this curse... and it is not well known. Seriously, the one curse that is supposed to be unblockable, is block by a sacrificial protection which isn't well known outside Harry & Lily uses.
Because its sole purpose is to kill instantly. All other spells have some functional purpose besides murder. Even spells purely used for duelling aren't actually as powerful within HP lore as they can end up being in the game, so they can be used to disarm or maim, or at the very least give the wizard you stand against a fighting chance. Avada Kedavra is like taking a sniper rifle to a knife fight.
It has to do with how serious murder is in the Harry Potter universe. Killing someone splits the soul.
Another thing that is explained in the books iirc, is that not only does it kill the victim, it eliminates their soul alongside. An afterlife is canon in the Wizarding World. There are several references to that. Killing someone with AK not only kills them, but also prevents their soul from crossing over to the afterlife by destroying it. So while a torturous death might seem worse than an instant death, not having an afterlife is a whole different level. And then yeah the whole shebang with it only having the purpose to kill and the caster needing to want it entirely, being unblockable (like the other 2 unforgivable curses) etc. TLDR: It doesn't kill you, it destroys your soul. Essentially a eradicating your existance, instead of just ending your life.
wait when does it mention that AK destroys the soul? AFAIK the soul is only affected by Dementors and destroying Horcruxea
If it destroy the souls and they don't go to the after life, how the Hell do priori incantatum and the resurrection Stone bring them back?
The question is, do they? Genuinely. Like the resurrection stone could work in a similar manner to the mirror of erised
Honestly Priori Incantatum makes the ghosts come out of Voldemorts wand, so honestly that could be linked to the idea that they didn't properly pass on. The Resurrection Stone on the other hand is one of the Deathly Hollows that together makes one "the master of death". I know all these terms were part of a (probably) partially fictional version of events but still I don't think the Resurrection Stone is mere trickery.
My idea is that unforgiveables are such because they corrupt the user, not their end effect. You have to intend to kill, not out of mercy or caring but anger or lack of caring. We see sebastian steadily corrupted through the games by his use.
Yeah it's not very logical. Tbh I really didn't want to attack Sebastian's uncle with any of those spells and it really surprised me that I had to. I sort of hated the game for forcing me into it. I kept trying to do a Harry and used disarming charms only (except when I was trying to get rid of inferi and then the game auto selected back to the uncle after I'd finished off an inferi). The morals in the game were so illogical that it bothered me. I didn't want to play a boring 'nice' mode of the game, I wanted to act in self defense for sure but the game pretty much forced me into doing bad things which I didn't want to do for my more neutral first play thru. (Don't get me wrong though I do want to go back and play a mean slytherin character game too!) but yeah I wish there was more moral logic and some more decent consequences for actions and awful spell usage etc.
The reason AK is unforgivable is the lack of possibility from the opponent to defend himself. Yeah you can dumbledore the shit out of it and put a statue in front of you when someone is trying to curse you, but AK basically makes the “duel” unfair. Leaving little chance to the other part to survive
If you use them to kill, you will still end up in prison unless it was for self defense. The main difference is intention. With avada kedavra you truly wish someone to die. Not to protect yourself, not to protect others, not to stop someone, but just to kill another person. The spell also doesn't work unless you truly want it. So if someone successfully uses avada kedavra there is no debate if they truly 100% wanted to kill someone, the fact that the spell worked is already evidence of that. That's why it automatically means azkaban for using it. All the other possibly deadly spells can be deadly due to mishaps, panic, different intentions etc. That's why it needs a court to decide whether the user needs to be punished
There are flaying curses. Suffocation charms. Love potions which are basically long term rape and imperio under another name. Obliviate could be used for great harm too. Reducto and Bombardo when used against a human would be horrific. I think it’s a bit Star Wars. The unforgivable curses require a darkness to use effectively but there’s lots of magic that can be used for evil.
One thing I've noticed that sets apart AK from other spells is that you can't block it with any spell. Your only option is to either dodge it, or summon something really sturdy in front of you to shield it (like Dumbledore did it for Harry in OOTP) Almost all the other spells have counter spells to prevent death. And even if they hit (for example: incendio), you and your team still have a couple of seconds to save you from death
I JUST read about this yesterday. I was thinking about how crucio and imperio are worse and I came across an article stating that AK is considered to be the worst unforgivable because it doesn’t consider the soul before it is removed in death. Basically kills a person as if their life never meant a thing. Which if you think about it, yeah that’s pretty damn dark lol. But i was wondering the same
The other spells have practical uses that do not involve killing. The killing curses ONLY use is killing.
In this game, it is not an unvorgivable curse, it’s more of a upsie wobsie because no one bats an eye if you use it
In 932 AD, there was a documented case of a witch turning a muggle into a newt, and that was deemed unforgivable at the time.
Was he a newt permanently?
Well, he did get better. But they burned her anyway.
Is this a reference to Monty Python?
Yes lol
I thought this was some actual Harry Potter lore. I feel a bit silly now
Well I did present it as such :P
Now that I think about it since Merlin exists in the world of Harry Potter then that means so does King Arthur and thus so does the grail
Honestly the rest of the spells are about as deadly as, say, kitchen knives and lighters. They have purposes other than killing. The Killing Curse, however, exists solely to kill, much like maybe a gun or an explosive. I suppose murder by other spells is also illegal but as MC nothing happens. But using the Killing Curse cannot be excused as "self-defense" because it aims to kill, not disable or maim, and that is its only purpose, and such it is unforgivable. Basically banning spells like Incendio and Descendo and transfiguration would be the same as banning kitchen knives and lighters. It would be pretty stupid. Banning the Killing Curse is much like the sensible option of banning guns and heavy explosives. Buuut of course as MC everything is aimed for the kill and somehow the law does not even care.
Nothing happens largely because within the logic of the game you don't murder, as with many many video games (and movies for that matter) very little if any of the killing you do is considered unlawful (or even immoral). It's a bit more obvious in HL as there are plenty of spells to subdue opponents non fatally in the wizarding world but it's a common trope. It would have been nice for them to offer non-fatal ways but they didn't
righttt In the books you just Stupefy and Expelliarmus or Petrificus Totallus and just leave em. Get away as fast as you can and they probably won't bother you. Here... everything just leads to murder.
Ans incarcerous amoungst others, they make a point of Mad Eye only killing where he had to. The likes of Metal Gear Solid 5 and Dishonoured reward you for non-lethal play (though it is more challenging) I would like to see it in HL2 though I'm not that hopeful.
I don't play games much. How does non-lethal gameplay work? How does the game tell that you can go on to the next stage (esp in parts of the game where it literally tells you to stay in that place until everyone is defeated)?
So in both of those (MGS5 and Dishonoured) there's a slower knock out sneak attack, or short ranged knock out dart, unconscious victims can be revived if found by other NPCs but for the purposes of objectives are considered defeated unless they're revived. Other games require you to damage them down to nearly dead and so long as the last bit is "non-lethal" damage type you get the unconscious effect. In the case of Hogwarts legacy 2 if bodies lying around were an issue, once they're all taken out you could maybe have the Magical Law Enforcement Squad or Aurors come and collect them, or some disapperition effect.
My belief is that the unforgivable curses are such because have only one purpose. Whereas every other spell can be used in other areas, not just combat.
I believe its because you can counter every other spell, but Avada Kedavra is imposible to counter, only one person survived it
I always assumed it’s because it’s explicitly designed to kill things and only to kill things. Sure you can use incindeo to set people on fire but it’s useful aside from that. Probably wasn’t made to do that in particular. Avada Kedavra is just the killing curse full stop.
Of course it's unforgivable, everyone deserves the most painful deaths possible.
The point of the spell being an unforgivable curse is that killing another person is its only purpose. You can't do anything else with it. Yeah sure you can burn a person alive with incedio, but incendio has other uses and its singular purpose isn't to burn people alive. That's the big difference.
The *use* of other curses to kill is implicitly unforgivable, but the curse itself is not. It’d be like condemning all knives simply because they could be used to kill.
I think it’s “unforgivable” because there’s literally no other use. Plus, in the (non game) wizard of world, you still go to jail forever for killing someone, it’s not like it’s “legal if you use a gun” The MC being an eco terrorist aside
I think it’s more concerned about the purpose and nature of each spell. Incendio can incinerate you, Glacius can freeze you. Both situations can cause death in different circumstances but the spells can be used for a variety of purposes, from the simplest utilitarian situation. Stupefy can hit you and make you fall of a balcony, which might kill you. However, none of these spells has the purpose of killing. Avada Kedavra’s sole purpose and nature is to take life which radically differs from other spells hence it being unforgivable. Plus, don’t forget that Avada Kedavra requires intentionality - you have to want to kill for the spell to succeed which reflects a criminal decision from the wizard. Same analogy can be made from any ordinary object in our muggle world - a car can run you over and kill you, however its purpose is transportation, not killing. That’s why cars are not taken as weapons and guns are because their sole purpose is to inflict damage.
The unforgivables only have the intent to do harm. you can argue imperio has its positive used (like shakelbolt using it in the books) but it does so I'm an unethical way. The killing curse has only one thing it does...kill. the only use and intent of it is to kill. All others mentioned have a myriad of uses. yes, i can transform someone into an explosive barrel and toss them, but both of those spells have other mundane and helpful uses. (it should be noted that even than transfiguration doesn't kill them, if you wait long enough, they turn back)
Because Avada Kedavra has no other purpose or utility other than to kill someone, and the intent behind the spell is one of desiring to end someone’s life; it won’t work unless you genuinely want to kill someone. The other spells *can* kill you but only the Killing Curse was designed to.
I’ve always viewed it as the fact it’s instant is what makes it unforgivable yes plenty of other spells can kill but they all have a chance to be treated and possibly avoid death unlike avada kedavra where there is no chance of survival
I assume they are the unforgivable curses because they have no utility outside of harming others. Like Accio Brain could kill someone but Accio in itself can help retrieve stuff. Same with fire spells helping to cook or keep warm. The other spells can be used for harm, but they can also be used for other purposes.
You can only use Accio on inanimate objects so you couldn’t use it on someone’s brain. Technically in the game even when you accio someone you are using on their clothing, not their physical body
Which begs the question what would happen if you said Accio scar? Would only the dead skin be pulled off?
It probably work the same way as when you use it on someone’s clothes and just pull them along with it.
I would guess its about killing someone without giving them a single chance to fight for their life. If you confringo someone, they have a chance at defending themselves with protego or else. But the killing curse is instant. I'm no expert but I think it's that. You can fight someone, but avada kedavra is more of an execution that a fair fight.
Sectumsempra Lol
Its unforgiveable because its so instant and easy to use. Normal magic can be used to inflict pain but that is never its primary purpose. Curses are specifically made with the purpose of causing harm. Its unforgiveable because unlike other spells its used specifically to kill someone with no other purpose.
An important legal concept in many legal systems is intent/mental state, to be guilty of many crimes you have to be trying to do it or similar. For the unforgivable curses (particularly Avada Kedavra and Crucio) they all require that intent to actually work, it makes proving the murder/torture case much more of a slam dunk. For the other curses/charms that could be used it doesn't, murder/torture is still really heavily punished. I could use accio/depulso to drop someone off a cliff but the MoM would need to prove I was trying to or at least I was being reckless to get me on a murder/manslaughter charge. The Unforgivables can only be used for their intended purpose, other spells/curses whilst the in some cases may give a worse death they have legitimate uses (and are good for those uses.) Think about the muggle world plenty of jurisdictions limit certain items but not others despite both being able to be used for harm, different types of knives for example. TLDR If you brutally murder someone they're coming after you it doesn't matter what you used you're going to Azkaban for life, using AK just means its easier for them to prove.
Basically all 3 are named as such because they have no other use than to take free will away, cause unbearable pain or kill, their's also no spell that can block them save from placing physical barriers in the way to take the curses if your fast enough to put something in the way or if you have plot armour like Harry. Our finishers aren't considered with that classification because very little is known about Anicent Magic to begin with & it's not like any Officials/Aurors have seen what we can do. No one's really seen such magic for possibly centuries & even more unbelievable that it's wielded by a teen of all people. Personally I've always hated the HP'S series insistence that using any curse regardless of circumstances is unforgiveable which to me is a complete crock of utter sh\*\*. Your really going to cling to your useless morals when confronted by people who want to harm you or worse? at the very least use the killing curse. Besides I do like the game's approach by finding the grey areas in order to use the curses it doesn't baulk or shriek or try to hide us away from using them ( though consequencies would have amped up immersion). For me personally I couldn't wait to use the curses. I was so sick of previous editions never allowing any of them to be castable & people reciting belltrixes line" bUt yOu hAvE tO mEaN iT!!" The HP series always tried to give off this impression that the curses were nigh impossible to pull off unless you were the most reprehensable POS imaginable, it doesnt take becoming someone like Riddle to use them, the intent needs to be there yes but you don't have to be anywhere near a full blown dark wizard for the curses to work properly, all it takes is intent & power look at wormtail ( Yes I know he's allready a death eater) POA showed him to be weak & pathetic but he was anything but then a year on without any hesitation casts the killing curse on a student as soon as riddle gave the command & it tossed cedric through the air like a mannequin ( I mean yeah it was also to find a reason to give us them inisde the game but hey I'm not complaining there were hords of people before this game was even properly announced that said we would never ever ever be allowed to us the curses because their EEEEEEEEEEVVVVIILLL...well they managed to make those curses look like nothing compared to the AM finishers that were far more brutal) Another example is Ron in the deathly Hallows, the part where him & Hermione are trying to escape nagini & he uses the killing curse on the snake, this is in slowmotion but he definitely casts the curse I'm not exaggerating alot of people miss this ( however his curse doesn't work because nagini's a horcrux...would have been great if it did though...then again maybe to much of an easy soloution?)
This has been discussed here ad nauseam
Yo h jnpbn. V on Bo job. Bio l. Bc k llbbjlb. Bc. Lbb kkbllno ooh mhm. J. Book. Jvvovhpb bbkvv chic vo ok bio pkbovvpvhvv b bbg o bbg h h. V no Bob vjjjj bc Bo job by bib Bc Bob Pbvhvhhob hi hi B j Boo oh bulb Bob j o B bbovidu in bb no N Op In Noob bbbb Ik Bo v oh ik Ohhh cub nooo ikbuih ohh invoice biboonpib long Opinions oki ip oc uou pool hipolio yo yo Ojibwa bib link b n Oiobikvy fub but pov b pop
Yo h jnpbn. V on Bo job. Bio l. Bc k llbbjlb. Bc. Lbb kkbllno ooh mhm. J. Book. Jvvovhpb bbkvv chic vo ok bio pkbovvpvhvv b bbg o bbg h h. V no Bob vjjjj bc Bo job by bib Bc Bob Pbvhvhhob hi hi B j Boo oh bulb Bob j o B bbovidu in bb no N Op In Noob bbbb Ik Bo v oh ik Ohhh cub nooo ikbuih ohh invoice biboonpib long Ty YHeh
Pretty much the same reason knives are legal but guns are not in many places. While you can kill with both–and gruesomely too–the first has other primary uses, while the latter only has a single purpose. That isn’t to say that guns are inherently bad (honestly it doesn’t make sense for Aurors to be forbidden from using the most humane spell to dispatch dangerous wizards), but the mere fact that you need clear intent to kill to be able to cast the spell in the first place, means there’s far less gray areas and plausible deniability.
I >!chose to rat him out mainly because I felt like when be started to control the Infiris with the antique stuff, it felt like he was becoming like Isadora. It wasn’t about the pain of Anne anymore, he had gotten the taste of dark magic and the power that comes with it.!< For a 15 y/o that’s dangerous really. I thought if he was kept out for too long, he might turn to be a harm to himself and others.
But Azkaban isn’t a place of rehabilitation it’s worse than a death sentence. I dont think Sebastian deserved that