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"

[Old Man Gamer (OMG)]

Escrito originalmente por Zephon:

Escrito originalmente por Old Man Gamer (OMG):

As far as I am aware, ancient magic is not part of the original lore. It is an addition via this game and story. The ancient magic, like the unforgivable curses, cannot be blocked. There is merit in your statement, if that was enough to make it unforgivable. Ancient magic, as per the game lore, can corrupt the person as well. But that gets into further spoilers.

Not to mention that the ancient magic seems to be able to both create and alter life at will.Too bad you never get trained to use it in this game...maybe HL 2.

Indeed. I am getting the impression that ancient magic is the original wizardry and witchcraft, and somehow was either watered down to the current magic users or was spread from the few by means of ancient magic use. Those that see ancient magic would be of a direct line, much like the Salazar Slytherin line with the Harry Potter lore, and how they spoke parseltongue.

[Zephon]

Escrito originalmente por Old Man Gamer (OMG):

Escrito originalmente por Zephon:

Not to mention that the ancient magic seems to be able to both create and alter life at will.Too bad you never get trained to use it in this game...maybe HL 2.

Indeed. I am getting the impression that ancient magic is the original wizardry and witchcraft, and somehow was either watered down to the current magic users or was spread from the few by means of ancient magic use. Those that see ancient magic would be of a direct line, much like the Salazar Slytherin line with the Harry Potter lore.

Now that would be an interesting premise finding out that every wizard/witch used to have this magic but it was deemed way too dangerous so they basically cut it up into the schools of magic.

[rservello]

Escrito originalmente por Zephon:

Escrito originalmente por Old Man Gamer (OMG):

Indeed. I am getting the impression that ancient magic is the original wizardry and witchcraft, and somehow was either watered down to the current magic users or was spread from the few by means of ancient magic use. Those that see ancient magic would be of a direct line, much like the Salazar Slytherin line with the Harry Potter lore.

Now that would be an interesting premise finding out that every wizard/witch used to have this magic but it was deemed way too dangerous so they basically cut it up into the schools of magic.

Hopefully the success on this game allows them to hire better writers and this story gets told right. I think this was a great foundation...with good writing it could have been a classic.

[Tho <3]

Escrito originalmente por MintedTea:

The people here defending the lore of "unforgivable curses" seemingly don't have any complaints about the ways in which you can use Ancient Magic in this game. Imagine believing that Avada Kedavra is bad when you can straight up violently slam someone into the ground repeatedly or cause them to explode from the inside out with ancient, technically forbidden magic and nobody bats an eye. Same prospect, different name.

The argument behind the "intention to kill/hurt/control" for the unforgivables is also stupid. You telling me that nobody who casts confringo does so with the intention to kill or horribly burn the person they're casting it at? Like c'mon dude, yes those types of spells have utilitarian uses too, but when you use it in combat, you're not exactly using it with the intention to tickle, are you?

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.

Interesting.
I would categorize spells in defensive and offensive so to speak.
Some to engage with and some to just simply defend yourself like protego or glacious to stun the enemy and then run
Or throw a bombarda above someone to burry them in rocks to get away also.
Yet if you want to be the attacker you can use confringo to make their clothes burn.

The unforgivable curses are a little different in a sense
That Imperius curse can literally control someone to do the most atrocious things you can think of UNWILLINGLY
The Cruciatus curse can make them feel inner pain to literally torture them until you say its over.
And the killing curse Avada Kedavra killing someone on the spot.

Adding to that its the law that forbids people to cast em, what is a huge deal too.

[Zephon]

Escrito originalmente por rservello:

Escrito originalmente por Zephon:

Now that would be an interesting premise finding out that every wizard/witch used to have this magic but it was deemed way too dangerous so they basically cut it up into the schools of magic.

Hopefully the success on this game allows them to hire better writers and this story gets told right. I think this was a great foundation...with good writing it could have been a classic.

Yeah i'm hoping for that too,this is the first game is years that i got to the end i was disappointed there wasn't more to the story.

[Dream hunter zero]

Yeah the unforgivable curses idea is really a plothole (not just in the context of the game but in the whole harry potter universe)

Take killing with avada kedvra for instance:

Intent of the user: to kill someone.
Function of the spell: kill.
Result for the poor sob on the other end: dead.

Now take any non ''unforgivable'' that could be used to kill (difindo, reducto, incendio i'm sure some creative wizard could kill you with the most innocous spell)
Intent of the user: to kill someone.
Function of the spell: can be anything.
Result for target: guy gets reductoed to death...

So same intent = same result only the ''tool'' used to get said result differ.

Same can be applied to crucio: sure it's only purpose is to inflict pain but with a bit of creativity you could torture someone far worse using any non ''unforgivable'' spell.

[Zephon]

Escrito originalmente por Dream hunter zero:

Yeah the unforgivable curses idea is really a plothole (not just in the context of the game but in the whole harry potter universe)

Take killing with avada kedvra for instance:

Intent of the user: to kill someone.
Function of the spell: kill.
Result for the poor sob on the other end: dead.

Now take any non ''unforgivable'' that could be used to kill (difindo, reducto, incendio i'm sure some creative wizard could kill you with the most innocous spell)
Intent of the user: to kill someone.
Function of the spell: can be anything.
Result for target: guy gets reductoed to death...

So same intent = same result only the ''tool'' used to get said result differ.

Same can be applied to crucio: sure it's only purpose is to inflict pain but with a bit of creativity you could torture someone far worse using any non ''unforgivable'' spell.

Yeah the spells were legal until 173 years before this game takes place and only after they found out they all corrupt the user and Avada Kedavra shreds the users soul with each use.Just wish they told that in game and didn't have to go to a wiki to find it out.

[rservello]

Escrito originalmente por Dream hunter zero:

Yeah the unforgivable curses idea is really a plothole (not just in the context of the game but in the whole harry potter universe)

Take killing with avada kedvra for instance:

Intent of the user: to kill someone.
Function of the spell: kill.
Result for the poor sob on the other end: dead.

Now take any non ''unforgivable'' that could be used to kill (difindo, reducto, incendio i'm sure some creative wizard could kill you with the most innocous spell)
Intent of the user: to kill someone.
Function of the spell: can be anything.
Result for target: guy gets reductoed to death...

So same intent = same result only the ''tool'' used to get said result differ.

Same can be applied to crucio: sure it's only purpose is to inflict pain but with a bit of creativity you could torture someone far worse using any non ''unforgivable'' spell.

Thank you. Entirely my point.

[Icy1007]

There is no "morality" in this game...

[rservello]

Escrito originalmente por Icy1007:

There is no "morality" in this game...

Well yeah, that's what I meant by, another issue entirely. I was only referring to the outrage of killing with a curse vs killing with any other spell is dumb.

[Tho <3]

Escrito originalmente por rservello:

Escrito originalmente por Tho:

So you've been to the crypt that leads you to the room of salazar slytherin.
Have you paid any attention to the dialog while walking through it?
Its said that you need to mean it else its not working, so if you dont mean it it wont have any effect / will not work. Think it was Ominis explaining it.

So for those 3 to have an effect, you need to mean it
Crucio = WANTING for the other to be in pain
Imperio = WANTING to control the person its being cast on
Avada Kedavra = Basically WANTING to kill

Sure, but dialogue doesn't mean ♥♥♥♥ in a game. As I already said it's mentioned that the user needs deadly intent and that it's bad. But the game doesn't punish you for using it. So there's no reason not to. Just like robbing peoples homes has ZERO consequence...so why not do it?? My point is that in the context of the GAME (not books) there is literally no reason to not use them besides being told it's bad. I even mentioned Ominis. His story is sad...but he just comes off as whiney since the world never has consequences to actually using curses. In a game that's all that matters. You can tell me all day it's evil...but if I can use it just like any other spell with impunity....why should I care???

Posted another comment, misunderstood on my end sorry.
And dialog means alot, cause it makes you understand the context.
You just want a punishment that is not in the game for you.

Escrito originalmente por Dream hunter zero:

Yeah the unforgivable curses idea is really a plothole (not just in the context of the game but in the whole harry potter universe)

Take killing with avada kedvra for instance:

Intent of the user: to kill someone.
Function of the spell: kill.
Result for the poor sob on the other end: dead.

Now take any non ''unforgivable'' that could be used to kill (difindo, reducto, incendio i'm sure some creative wizard could kill you with the most innocous spell)
Intent of the user: to kill someone.
Function of the spell: can be anything.
Result for target: guy gets reductoed to death...

So same intent = same result only the ''tool'' used to get said result differ.

Same can be applied to crucio: sure it's only purpose is to inflict pain but with a bit of creativity you could torture someone far worse using any non ''unforgivable'' spell.

Yes so can pencils, scissors, a glass cup or bottle.
All can be used to harm someone. Same thing here.

[Supgad]

It is my feeling that "meaning it" when you use an Unforgivable Curse doesn't necessitate having evil intent. You could have virtuous intent (e.g. the need to extract vital information using the Cruciatus Curse that could save lives, hypothetically speaking) and still "mean it."

In the game, you and/or Sebastian can use the Cruciatus Curse to open the Slytherin Scriptorium, not necessarily because either of you are evil but because you earnestly intend to enter the room and pillage its possibly life-saving secrets.

The Curses are still reprehensible and so-named because of the wanton harm they can cause when used capriciously or thoughtlessly, but I don't believe everyone who dabbles in the Unforgivable Curses are inherently evil people.

[Zephon]

Escrito originalmente por Supgad:

It is my feeling that "meaning it" when you use an Unforgivable Curse doesn't necessitate having evil intent. You could have virtuous intent (e.g. the need to extract vital information using the Cruciatus Curse that could save lives, hypothetically speaking) and still "mean it."

In the game, you and/or Sebastian can use the Cruciatus Curse to open the Slytherin Scriptorium, not necessarily because either of you are evil but because you earnestly intend to enter the room and pillage its possibly life-saving secrets.

The Curses are still reprehensible and so-named because of the wanton harm they can cause when used capriciously or thoughtlessly, but I don't believe everyone who dabbles in the Unforgivable Curses are inherently evil people.

The meaning it for Crucio is you want to torture the person and enjoy their suffering.So the fact that you can both do it is a bit of a red flag honestly.

[Dream hunter zero]

Escrito originalmente por Supgad:

The Curses are still reprehensible and so-named because of the wanton harm they can cause when used capriciously or thoughtlessly...

By that logic ALL magic should be reprehensible because of the wanton harm they can cause when used capriciously or thoughtlessly

Is a gun or a killing spell evil ? no it's just a tool.
Is using it evil ? no as you said you can find cases were it will be used for good or with good intentions.

So by what logic would the ''unforgivables'' be unforgivable ?

[Supgad]

Escrito originalmente por Zephon:

Escrito originalmente por Supgad:

It is my feeling that "meaning it" when you use an Unforgivable Curse doesn't necessitate having evil intent. You could have virtuous intent (e.g. the need to extract vital information using the Cruciatus Curse that could save lives, hypothetically speaking) and still "mean it."

In the game, you and/or Sebastian can use the Cruciatus Curse to open the Slytherin Scriptorium, not necessarily because either of you are evil but because you earnestly intend to enter the room and pillage its possibly life-saving secrets.

The Curses are still reprehensible and so-named because of the wanton harm they can cause when used capriciously or thoughtlessly, but I don't believe everyone who dabbles in the Unforgivable Curses are inherently evil people.

The meaning it for Crucio is you want to torture the person and enjoy their suffering.So the fact that you can both do it is a bit of a red flag honestly.

We fundamentally disagree that one who uses Crucio must enjoy that person's pain. You can want to torture someone and not revel in the harm or pain that inflicts upon another person. Intentions matter in most things.

But I perhaps choose to see the world in many more shades of gray.