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"

[Trump G.O.A.T-POTUS]

Morality in the game is totally Borked, there is no real evil you can do, you learn the three unforgivable curses and nothing. Use them in front of anything nothing but words of amazement.

[Patricia Hapon]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von SotiCoto:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von 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.

I would even add that it's "books for teenagers" not kids. It's a subtle difference but with a bit of memory or parenting it tend to become a major difference.

[Zackarias]

I personally found it difficult to determine whether Sebastian or Solomon were in the right. Yes, Sebastian did use dark magic to attempt to save Anne and ended up killing Solomon in the end but it is pointed out that Solomon himself used dark magic as an auror in the past. So banishing his nephew and separating him from his niece simply for using dark magic is very hypocritical on the part of Solomon. Solomon could have tried to treat Sebastian better than he did then they probably could have gotten around the tragedy to begin with.

[EleventhStar]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Patricia Hapon:

I would even add that it's "books for teenagers" not kids. It's a subtle difference but with a bit of memory or parenting it tend to become a major difference.

the later books sure, but the age of the characters gives a good hint at the target audience and the first ones are definitely for kids.

[Trump G.O.A.T-POTUS]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Patricia Hapon:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von SotiCoto:

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.

I would even add that it's "books for teenagers" not kids. It's a subtle difference but with a bit of memory or parenting it tend to become a major difference.

It seemed to be more books for lonely desperate women, your experience may vary.

[Patricia Hapon]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von EleventhStar:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Patricia Hapon:

I would even add that it's "books for teenagers" not kids. It's a subtle difference but with a bit of memory or parenting it tend to become a major difference.

the later books sure, but the age of the characters gives a good hint at the target audience and the first ones are definitely for kids.

I'm not that sure that kids are able to fully understand abusive treatment, having to cope with the consequences of your parents' actions and puberty unless it's something they're living (well, not puberty, that would not be kids anymore)

In the first book you get an abused child removed from his tutors, getting his parents' legacy (money, friendship, respect and hate) and having to cope with a mix of starting anew in an unknown environnement while being highly known and judged.
All that in an ambiance made of slavery, racism, inequality and competition.

If your able to read and understand all that when you're a kid, you should jump some classes and be ready to work. (medias would be a good workline for such a genius)

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Kung-flu Fighting™:

It seemed to be more books for lonely desperate women, your experience may vary.

... I... Can't understand that point. I don't see any relation between the "lonely" "desperate" "woman" and the universe or events in the books.

[mutantbeth]

because unlike the other spells, those three only have the intent to harm someone. Either through torture, stripping them of their free will and killing them. If it wasn't discouraged and illegal than youd have more sebastians killing people cause they are angry in the moment

[TacticalFool]

This was one of my gripes where I felt the writing didn't quite stack up, as though it had all the ingredients but hadn't quite got the recipe right so to speak.
For me, I happened to do the quest where Sebastian kills his uncle immediately before doing San Bakar's trial. This meant I saw Sebastian use the killing curse then had my character tell Sebastian no one should know the curse then witness San Bakar's memory where he used the curse in a way that felt justified.
So why is Sebastian bad for using it and not San Bakar? The game never considers that.

I'd say Sebastian was angry and lashed out unnecessarily and San Bakar was in a more dire situation against someone wielding poorly understood magic is a dangerous way. The latter seems infinitely more excusable than the former. But that's me drawing my own conclusions. Actually having your character consider that would have added something.

Regarding OP's point, when Sebastian uses Imperio he acts rashly but instinctively. Not the best choice of spell but is his uncle seriously suggesting that he should have done nothing and let his sister die? Because that's what his uncle seems to be implying.
However, I think that's more the uncle's character rather than bad writing.

[wardenwolf]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Kung-flu Fighting™:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Patricia Hapon:

I would even add that it's "books for teenagers" not kids. It's a subtle difference but with a bit of memory or parenting it tend to become a major difference.

It seemed to be more books for lonely desperate women, your experience may vary.

Nah, that was Twilight (and 50 Shades). 20 years ago I knew way more guys into Harry Potter than women...though that could have changed and I AM just talking about the books and movies.

[Patricia Hapon]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von TacticalFool:

San Bakar's memory where he used the curse in a way that felt justified.
So why is Sebastian bad for using it and not San Bakar? The game never considers that.

Actually, if the spell was following exactly how those spells are supposed to work, San Bakar would have a hard time using it.

Those spells have a requirement and it's "wanting the effect". If you want to "save your life", "protect someone" or "stop someone" there is no curses that do that.
You need to either want to "dominate", "make suffer" or "kill".

The difference is subtle (because killing someone is also stopping someone) but in the lore it's the whole difference. If you're "good" (note the quotes) you will stupefix then bind someone to stop him, if your "bad" (quotes...) you will try ... well, kill or dominate, maybe suffer if you're really twisted and "stopping" is more an excuse while you just want some a justification.

Actually, the "reason" for a forbidden is it's effect, everything else would be an excuse. In Sebastian's case we should say that he wanted to dominate more than saving.

But the game is far from giving that feeling, even more with our own characters.

[TacticalFool]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Patricia Hapon:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von TacticalFool:

San Bakar's memory where he used the curse in a way that felt justified.
So why is Sebastian bad for using it and not San Bakar? The game never considers that.

Actually, if the spell was following exactly how those spells are supposed to work, San Bakar would have a hard time using it.

Those spells have a requirement and it's "wanting the effect". If you want to "save your life", "protect someone" or "stop someone" there is no curses that do that.
You need to either want to "dominate", "make suffer" or "kill".

The difference is subtle (because killing someone is also stopping someone) but in the lore it's the whole difference. If you're "good" (note the quotes) you will stupefix then bind someone to stop him, if your "bad" (quotes...) you will try ... well, kill or dominate, maybe suffer if you're really twisted and "stopping" is more an excuse while you just want some a justification.

Actually, the "reason" for a forbidden is it's effect, everything else would be an excuse. In Sebastian's case we should say that he wanted to dominate more than saving.

But the game is far from giving that feeling, even more with our own characters.

Those are fair points, and this highlights the flaw with the game not going into why San Bakaar faces no repercussion or negative reaction to using the killing curse whilst Sebastian does even if you don't send him to Azkabahn.

[Ingel Riday]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von 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"

Fair, really. However, I didn't really consider it bad writing. I just think these wizards are kind of insane.

I levitated a goblin into the air and then force-pushed him off a cliff to his death. I froze another goblin, then slashed him with a magical blade and cut him in two. I literally exploded and burned multiple goblins to death, followed up by magically ripping an ax from the last goblin's hand and then cleaving his head in two with it via an ancient throw.

But I'm ALL GOOD. NOTHING WRONG HERE. A+ fine, but Sebastian using magic to kill a goblin via mind-control seppuku? HOW DARE HE!!!

Since gaining transfiguration magic, I've lost count of how many people I've turned into barrels and smashed against walls, their innards and flesh spraying everywhere as little wooden shards. But I'm A+ okay, fine and dandy, because apparently barrel magic is GOOD magic. Killing someone instantly and painlessly with avada kedavra, though? BAD MAGIC!!!

"Well, when you cast avada kedavra, you're doing so with the intention of killing them."

Sure, but I turn them into barrels with the absolute intention of killing them, too. So how does that argument work now? Barrel magic going to become the next unforgivable curse?

Eh, it's Harry Potter world rules. Burn someone to death? Fling them into a wall and break their spine? Slice them with magic blades? Turn them into barrels and shatter them? As long as none of those spells have menacing dark-green lighting when they go off, you're okay. I did not turn Sebastian in, because he killed one dude all school year compared to my thousand plus body count, and he did it clean. My wizard is a psychopathic barrel mage. I have no right to judge him.

[MetaliCator]

IF memory serves me right...

The reason the forbidden spells were forbidden, was because the one who was appointed as the head of the ministry of magic at the time wanted to protect him self from this magic as it was not possible to defend your self from them.

I can't remember why exactly he did that though... as far as I care, that person could be corrupt and wanted to save him self from anyone using these three unblockable curses on him for the remaining 1 year he had left as the head of the ministry of magic.

If anyone here is a Harry Potter fan/fanatic or simply knows the lore better, please feel free to correct my comment, something I said could be wrong, last time I red the books was years ago.

[EleventhStar]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von cool-dude:

Scariest spell in the lore is Obliviate in my opinion.. That spell can erase your memory of what you had for dinner last night, or it can completely wipe your mind and turn you into a vegetable that forgets how to speak.

concidering memory deletion and memory storage are both demonstrated, it's quite possible memory transfer/creation is also possible. that has some real scary applications for a creative dark wizard.

it's a real shame those pensieves (somehow) give you a third persons view of a memory rather than a first person view, would be a very good teaching tool in that case.

[TheOrigArcader]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Causer 42:

I will however comment on what I think this post is actually about, the morality side of the game. I do think with those curses being unforgivable, there should be a clear penalisation for using them.

A morality system could have provided many ways to penalize players who went down the dark path. Loss of quests from good characters due to their evolving dark nature, loss of ancient magic capacity if they decreed that dark magic conflicts with ancient magic, etc.

However, those spells are considered unforgivable because people deemed them to be more harmful than helpful to wizard society. The previous comment about them being unblockable makes them honorless spells, which in a feudal-like society, is bad form particularly when in a duel.

Looking at the Harry Potter universe, Dark wizards can still fit in with society as long as they don't do dark things in front of normies. I just thought that characterizing all Slytherins as dark wizard types was kind of a crutch. Anyone could become one, regardless of what house you were in at Hogwarts. Maybe that is why the game studio was loathe to even fully implement morality because it pigeonholes you into two specific paths of game play which makes the world building that much more difficult and time consuming.