Morality is just so busted in this game...**Spoilers**

[rservello]

When Sebastian uses Imperio on the goblin his uncle loses it, saying he went too far using an unforgivable curse to save his sister. But if he had used Diffindo to cut him in half, or Confringo to blow his ass up he would have been totally cool with it. End result is the goblin is dead. Since there are NO debuffs or in story consequences to curses I don't see the point of this posturing. It's just bad writing and "role-playing"

[Orion Invictus]

Escrito originalmente por Silent:

This isn't Lord of the Rings.
There is no objective "Good, Bad."

It's just power, and how you choose to use it, much like the real world.

You're right. In the books, there are simply people who are good (and, by extension, everything they do is also good) and people who are bad (and, by extension, everything they do is bad). Hence why Harry defends slavery in the books, bullies people, and is generally a jerk, but it's OK because he's a good guy.

In fact, one of the moments HP comes close to deviating from that formula is the slavery bit, where Hermione (a "good" character) is against it, but her opinion is considered "wrong".

[Elysia]

about the point with draco telling that harry didnt mean it, and how you and sebastion can cast it on eachother. how lonmg does the effect last on sebastian, 3 seconds orso?, like draco said, you cant harm for long if you dont mean it. about the game, what if the dark arts line had the 3 curses in it, and if you didnt put 5 points in the spell, it doesnt do anything. meaning if you want to use the 3 curses as player you only have 21 points to use at lvl 40.making you really go into the dark arts path if you want to use them

[Yakito]

Escrito originalmente por Orion Invictus:

Escrito originalmente por Silent:

This isn't Lord of the Rings.
There is no objective "Good, Bad."

It's just power, and how you choose to use it, much like the real world.

You're right. In the books, there are simply people who are good (and, by extension, everything they do is also good) and people who are bad (and, by extension, everything they do is bad). Hence why Harry defends slavery in the books, bullies people, and is generally a jerk, but it's OK because he's a good guy.

In fact, one of the moments HP comes close to deviating from that formula is the slavery bit, where Hermione (a "good" character) is against it, but her opinion is considered "wrong".

We've clearly read different harry potter books. Bullies? Defends slavery? Huh?

Unless you're sarcastic but i can't tell.

[Orion Invictus]

Escrito originalmente por Yakito:

Escrito originalmente por Orion Invictus:

You're right. In the books, there are simply people who are good (and, by extension, everything they do is also good) and people who are bad (and, by extension, everything they do is bad). Hence why Harry defends slavery in the books, bullies people, and is generally a jerk, but it's OK because he's a good guy.

In fact, one of the moments HP comes close to deviating from that formula is the slavery bit, where Hermione (a "good" character) is against it, but her opinion is considered "wrong".

We've clearly read different harry potter books. Bullies? Defends slavery? Huh?

Unless you're sarcastic but i can't tell.

House Elves? You know, the literal slave race in Harry Potter? Harry is annoyed by Hermione saying that, hey, maybe they shouldn't be slaves in the first place.

And what would you call making fun of someone for their physical appearance, if not bullying? Isn't Harry infamously a jerk in the books?

Full disclosure: Haven't actually read the books, just read about the books (including quotes) and heard of the books from people who've read them and could probably recite everything from memory.

[rservello]

Escrito originalmente por Orion Invictus:

Escrito originalmente por Yakito:

We've clearly read different harry potter books. Bullies? Defends slavery? Huh?

Unless you're sarcastic but i can't tell.

House Elves? You know, the literal slave race in Harry Potter? Harry is annoyed by Hermione saying that, hey, maybe they shouldn't be slaves in the first place.

And what would you call making fun of someone for their physical appearance, if not bullying? Isn't Harry infamously a jerk in the books?

Full disclosure: Haven't actually read the books, just read about the books (including quotes) and heard of the books from people who've read them and could probably recite everything from memory.

Missing the fact that he literally frees a House Elf (slave)?

[Jhea]

he used imperio, and made the goblin cut out his own guts

that's pretty dark, with confringo he just explodes and is dead, and does not commit seppuke samurai style.

that's the 'dark' part of this curse

[❛❛Vénttea❜❜]

Escrito originalmente por MintedTea:

The only "unforgivable curse" that I could confidently say deserves the name is Crucio, since it exists solely to inflict pain and torture on people. Imperio, however, isn't purely "bad" and could be used for various benevolent purposes, while Avada is literally an instant kill with no pain and suffering - if anything it's significantly more peaceful and merciful than setting someone on fire and watching them burn to death.

Honestly, Imperio is much worse than Crucio. Sure Crucio is solely to inflict pain but Imperio as Sebastian established is pure manipulation and mind control and hardly benevolent if used without consent and make someone a scapegoat to murder, suicide or espionage. Not sure what is benevolent about it aside from euthanasia. Also depending the person they are controlling, they may or may not be aware they were controlled.

As for Avada Kedvra is just the best killing spell in the lore and there is absolutely no counter to it, not even if they have defensive spells like except Harry's Plot Armor. You can block a Confringo, Incendio or even a Diffendo but you can NEVER stop an Avada Kedvra. That is the main reason why its an Unforgivable Curse, it's just too good as a Murder Spell.

[Jeza]

Escrito originalmente por rservello:

When Sebastian uses Imperio on the goblin his uncle loses it, saying he went too far using an unforgivable curse to save his sister. But if he had used Diffindo to cut him in half, or Confringo to blow his ass up he would have been totally cool with it. End result is the goblin is dead. Since there are NO debuffs or in story consequences to curses I don't see the point of this posturing. It's just bad writing and "role-playing"

Think of it this way :

in a war you are faced with an enemy soldier and use your rifle to kill him versus in the same war you use say a chemical weapon to torture your enemy to death.
Or what's worse being tortured with pain or have your mind controlled. I don't know you but having my will taken away and becoming a puppet for someone is way worse than being killed no matter how.
End result is the same one is a war crime the other is just war.

Plus in the lore those spells seem to corrupt the user hence why they've been banned.

The issue that remains is the morality of killing another human being for gain, even in a war both sides are trying to gain something no matter how you justify it. But that's way beyond the scope of this game.

But this brings also one of the biggest weaknesses of this game, no consequences for anything you do, being breaking and entering in full daylight in front of the whole village to using spells outside of school etc.

[Tr0w]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btbaOThMIUU&ab_channel=HarryPotterTheory

[Dragon Master]

Escrito originalmente por rservello:

Escrito originalmente por Supgad:

Your gripe isn't with this game in particular, then. It's with the lore of Harry Potter on aggregate. In the books, in the movies, you can blow your foe up in any other way than with an Unforgivable Curse, and it's all copacetic. The minute you go down the path of the Dark Arts, though, you're a monster.

I don't really know the lore so perhaps that is the issue. I know it's steeped in dogma, so maybe that's what's going on. Like how you can murder someone and ask forgiveness and go to heaven with many religions.

The reason the Unforgiveables are so called is because it's just not possible to cast them without real intent. You can't crucio someone unless you truly want them to suffer and enjoy their suffering. You can't use imperio unless you truly wish to dominate someone and remove their free will altogether, and you just can't cast the killing curse unless you truly 100% want to kill them.

Just the mere act of casting them proves intent, and intent is king in the wizarding world's lore. Harry was able to protect all of Hogwarts because he intended to die for them in the 7th book, same as his mother intending to die to save him when he was a baby thus giving him protection. Or the Patronus Charm only working with 100% concentration on a happy memory, not a fleeting pleasure or a fond memory but genuine happiness. Or the ridikulous spell against boggarts that turns your worst fear into something funny requiring focusing on that.

It's not the actions that is the problem, it's the fact that the spell is even capable of being cast because that alone proves intent.

[Patricia Hapon]

Escrito originalmente por Dragon Master:

Escrito originalmente por rservello:

I don't really know the lore so perhaps that is the issue. I know it's steeped in dogma, so maybe that's what's going on. Like how you can murder someone and ask forgiveness and go to heaven with many religions.

The reason the Unforgiveables are so called is because it's just not possible to cast them without real intent. You can't crucio someone unless you truly want them to suffer and enjoy their suffering. You can't use imperio unless you truly wish to dominate someone and remove their free will altogether, and you just can't cast the killing curse unless you truly 100% want to kill them.

Just the mere act of casting them proves intent, and intent is king in the wizarding world's lore. Harry was able to protect all of Hogwarts because he intended to die for them in the 7th book, same as his mother intending to die to save him when he was a baby thus giving him protection. Or the Patronus Charm only working with 100% concentration on a happy memory, not a fleeting pleasure or a fond memory but genuine happiness. Or the ridikulous spell against boggarts that turns your worst fear into something funny requiring focusing on that.

It's not the actions that is the problem, it's the fact that the spell is even capable of being cast because that alone proves intent.

That, the fact that there is no counter against (you can AK a mage while dueling where you wouldn't be able to even scratch him with a deffendo) and the fact that all of them just can't be used for a good deed. (you can make suffer, dominate or kill, that's it. Incendio for exemple is great for a fireplace at least)

[SotiCoto]

I think a better question is less "Why did the uncle throw a hissy fit over Imperio" and more "Why did Sea-bass reflexively cast Imperio out of all the attack spells he knows?" ...

I mean for him to cast it on reflex suggests he has been practicing it a LOT.... like insane amounts. Kinda the same way I reflexively cast Descendo... because smacking people face-first into the ground over and over again amuses me to the point where it is my first, second and third resort to almost every situation.

[wardenwolf]

Escrito originalmente por SotiCoto:

I think a better question is less "Why did the uncle throw a hissy fit over Imperio" and more "Why did Sea-bass reflexively cast Imperio out of all the attack spells he knows?" ...

I mean for him to cast it on reflex suggests he has been practicing it a LOT.... like insane amounts. Kinda the same way I reflexively cast Descendo... because smacking people face-first into the ground over and over again amuses me to the point where it is my first, second and third resort to almost every situation.

As with anything, it's a plot contrivance. If you read through the books, they're filled with horrible morality tales and plot contrivances just to help a struggling author sell books to kids. None of this is complicated, and it's as silly an argument as the light side/dark side force arguments. None of the stories' plots make sense once you start to logically pick them apart.

[SotiCoto]

Escrito originalmente por wardenwolf:

As with anything, it's a plot contrivance. If you read through the books, they're filled with horrible morality tales and plot contrivances just to help a struggling author sell books to kids. None of this is complicated, and it's a silly an argument as the light side/dark side force arguments. None of the stories' make sense once you start to logically pick them apart.

Well yeah. Obviously.
But giving the same old "JKR writes kids books because she can't write anything that holds up to scrutiny" answer for everything gets old quickly.

[wardenwolf]

Escrito originalmente por SotiCoto:

Escrito originalmente por wardenwolf:

As with anything, it's a plot contrivance. If you read through the books, they're filled with horrible morality tales and plot contrivances just to help a struggling author sell books to kids. None of this is complicated, and it's a silly an argument as the light side/dark side force arguments. None of the stories' make sense once you start to logically pick them apart.

Well yeah. Obviously.
But giving the same old "JKR writes kids books because she can't write anything that holds up to scrutiny" answer for everything gets old quickly.

Doesn't change the truth. Anything else is someone's headcanon.