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"

[Tho <3]

I really dont know and question if they OP grew up with a mischievous lifestyle of some sort or a punishment kink.
To do things that are technically not forbidden and so I wont get a penality for it or that its technically a grey area so i can abuse it.

But complaining about a morality aspect yet DONT value dialog much is sort of condescending .. no?

[Zephon]

Origineel geplaatst door Supgad:

Origineel geplaatst door Zephon:

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.

Well it's not really a disagree as i've said in other places in this thread i had to go look up the lore on the curses.You can't use the crucio curse without wanting to torture and enjoy that persons suffering.

[Tho <3]

Origineel geplaatst door Dream hunter zero:

Origineel geplaatst door 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 ?

Why are guns banned in some countries and not all sharp utensils / objects used on the daily basis?

[Queen_Nessie.TTV]

Origineel geplaatst door 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.

Confringo doesn't corrupt your soul, avada kedavra will though, as well as the two others.

And I'm in agreement with the OP that there should be penalties for using the three curses, would make the game that much more interesting.

[Supgad]

Origineel geplaatst door Dream hunter zero:

Origineel geplaatst door 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 ?

The Unforgivable Curses tend, on aggregate, to rob people of their dignity, their agency and/or free will, or their lives. The only object of those three curses are people.

In contrast, Accrio, or Flippendo, or even Incendio have uses outside of harming others. I'd still argue that using those spells to inflict pain and harm is also a nasty choice, though again intention matters in my view. Dispatching Dark Wizards who seek to plunge all of wizardkind into war seems more forgivable than just walking up to someone and blowing them up -- and I'd argue that using an Unforgivable Curse to spare wizardkind from that war in some way is more nebulously gray, morally, too.

[Dream hunter zero]

Assuming that our wizard will by virtue of the story fight to the death a generic evil dark wizard (aka what you spend a good portion of the game doing).

Killing someone with avada kedavra = instant death
Killing someone with say incendio = death by burning which is quite a prolonged and painful affair.

Sorry but it would seem to me that the swift death of avada kedavra should be more morally acceptable.

If anything even out of the context of the game if the intent of the wizard is to kill any method of killing is at best on same moral level or at worst like my exemple darker depending on the amount of needless pain you inflict.

[harmonia81]

Maybe, but I don't think it really matters, because Sebastian's relationship with his uncle has deteriorated so far beyond any trust or reasoning by this point, this just seems to be the final straw between them. From a story perspective, his uncle has already made up his mind, and you can't persuade him otherwise no matter how you justify it. And that's just part of the story arc for Sebastian's questline.

I agree though, this questline was for me the best one in the game, as it had the most interesting character development and moral choices...but there was ultimately a missed opportunity to really Implement player choice consequence into the game when it comes to using the curses/dark magic. The protagonist themselves can learn all the same spells, and never has to sacrifice any relationships or consequences for it, which makes it jarring when it's such a big deal lore wise.

Reminds me a lot of the situation with Blood Magic in Bioware's Dragon Age series. Like Unforgivable curses, Blood Magic was outlawed and controversial according to the lore. The devs never really figured out a believable way to implement consequences for being a Blood Mage, while it was such a big deal in the lore, so eventually they decided it couldn't be treated as just another spell set specialization and took out the ability to even learn those spells in later games. They don't necessarily need to do the same here. Just add some meaningful consequences someplace for making that choice.

[Tho <3]

Origineel geplaatst door Dream hunter zero:

Assuming that our wizard will by virtue of the story fight to the death a generic evil dark wizard (aka what you spend a good portion of the game doing).

Killing someone with avada kedavra = instant death
Killing someone with say incendio = death by burning which is quite a prolonged and painful affair.

Sorry but it would seem to me that the swift death of avada kedavra should be more morally acceptable.

If anything even out of the context of the game if the intent of the wizard is to kill any method of killing is at best on same moral level or at worst like my exemple darker depending on the amount of needless pain you inflict.

Why are you so stuck on the Player being evil?
And no since incendio would be reversable by using a rain spell or glacious maybe on yourself to extinguish the fire.
You know incendio isnt being cast inside of the "victim".. right? Its like throwing a burning log onto someone with increased speed.

[Zephon]

Origineel geplaatst door Dream hunter zero:

Assuming that our wizard will by virtue of the story fight to the death a generic evil dark wizard (aka what you spend a good portion of the game doing).

Killing someone with avada kedavra = instant death
Killing someone with say incendio = death by burning which is quite a prolonged and painful affair.

Sorry but it would seem to me that the swift death of avada kedavra should be more morally acceptable.

If anything even out of the context of the game if the intent of the wizard is to kill any method of killing is at best on same moral level or at worst like my exemple darker depending on the amount of needless pain you inflict.

It's not banned because of some form of morality though,it's banned because it's use shreds the users soul.So by using it they start losing themselves and become literally more evil with each use.So sure the first use they might be using it for a moral reason but by say the 50th use they're using it to kill defenseless muggles.

[Vamptacus]

Origineel geplaatst door Incredibly average:

Origineel geplaatst door Zephon:

Well honestly you shouldn't need to have read the books or seen the movies or read a wiki to know these things. Could have put a page in your field guide on spells and have a short description on each spell.

Disagree. Simply put.

I can repeat myself as you didn't react to it: the game is deliberately set in an existing universe. You can't expect the game to reiterate every detail.

You do know other games do that and explain things in a section of the game like a bestiary or something, witcher 3 is the first that comes to mind.
But I suppose a fanboy or girl will always try to defend whatever they're a fan of no matter how retarded it is

[Dominus Ursorum]

SPOILERS in the crucio quest its explained that the dark arts require a desire to to hurt or cause harm in order to cast them that is why ominus gaunt is so opposed to you learning dark arts also why he is so hard on himself for having cast crucio as a little kid. that is why the unforgivable curses are unforgivable the required thirst for pain and torture i.e.evil

[Supgad]

Origineel geplaatst door Dominus Ursorum:

SPOILERS in the crucio quest its explained that the dark arts require a desire to to hurt or cause harm in order to cast them that is why ominus gaunt is so opposed to you learning dark arts also why he is so hard on himself for having cast crucio as a little kid. that is why the unforgivable curses are unforgivable the required thirst for pain and torture i.e.evil

My contention is that a "desire to to hurt or cause harm" is not the same thing as enjoying that harm.

You can want to hurt someone without finding amusement in that pain, I think, depending on your motives.

EDIT: And to clarify, Ominis never said you have to want to actually hurt someone, simply that you have to "mean it." And I can't find a single source that insists you have to deeply revel in the pain that is wrought.

Aurors were permitted during the First Wizarding War to use the Unforgivable Curses. To immediately imply that they all quickly shifted to having evil designs, or to be inherently evil themselves and to revel in their targets' pain, is conflating two ideas that are otherwise mutually exclusive.

[rservello]

Origineel geplaatst door Supgad:

Origineel geplaatst door Zephon:

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.

And the game proves this. When crucio is used to open the door it is either you or Seb casting it. Neither of you wants to harm the other. Therefore the intent is simply to cast it.

[Zephon]

Origineel geplaatst door Supgad:

Origineel geplaatst door Dominus Ursorum:

SPOILERS in the crucio quest its explained that the dark arts require a desire to to hurt or cause harm in order to cast them that is why ominus gaunt is so opposed to you learning dark arts also why he is so hard on himself for having cast crucio as a little kid. that is why the unforgivable curses are unforgivable the required thirst for pain and torture i.e.evil

My contention is that a "desire to to hurt or cause harm" is not the same thing as enjoying that harm.

You can want to hurt someone without finding amusement in that pain, I think, depending on your motives.

EDIT: And to clarify, Ominis never said you have to want to actually hurt someone, simply that you have to "mean it." And I can't find a single source that insists you have to deeply revel in the pain that is wrought.

Aurors were permitted during the First Wizarding War to use the Unforgivable Curses. To immediately imply that they all quickly shifted to having evil designs, or to be inherently evil themselves and to revel in their targets' pain, is conflating two ideas that are otherwise mutually exclusive.

"Never used an Unforgivable Curse before, have you, boy? You need to mean them, Potter! You need to really want to cause pain — to enjoy it — righteous anger won't hurt me for long — I'll show you how it is done, shall I?"
and
To successfully perform this curse, simply uttering the incantation was not enough; the wizard or witch had to possess a deep desire to cause the victim pain and to take great pleasure in their suffering.

[Dream hunter zero]

Regardless of the morality you choose to have for you character, you will kill other wizards and other sapient creatures (in presumably very painful ways even without using the unforgivables) that's just the way the game is designed. this is what emphasizes the plothole with the '' unforgivable '' part.

As for the unforgivables corrupting the user i don't believe it is actually explained or presented in the game. maybe it's the case in the books in this case ok it's a somewhat valid argument.

However if it's just a case of power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely then i maintain that the unforgivables do not present enough of a difference with regular magic to merit the distinction and consequences. (Again regular magic can do all the things unforgivables do and with creativity worse, much worse)