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"

[harmonia81]

Originally posted by Zyffrm:

Ultimately the reasoning for why the three curses are "unforgivable" is really simple. Because of the great amount of "intent" that has to be present to fuel the curse. Sebastian Sallow says he didn't "mean" to kill his uncle but that just isn't possible, he fully intended in killing him in that instant otherwise the curse would not have worked. So if someone was put on trial for using any of the UCs they are incapable of using the defense "well I didn't mean to!" because absolutely yes they did. Someone could be using bombarda to blow up empty cans and accidentally kill someone with shrapnel, "I didn't mean to" would hold true.

That makes sense.... although, personally, I took Sebastian's "I didn't mean to..." as more like a self justification for what he did in the heat in the moment after the fact, not so much a statement that it was all an accident (like a gun firing accidentally). It didn't turn out how he hoped and he regretted it only pushed Anne away more.

That said, spells like bombarda could be just as dangerous in the wrong hands, since they truly can be accidental, whereas a curse you'd have to have a specific intent and really mean it. I haven't read the books, but I recall the Professors warning you about your wand movements and such, so you don't accidentally blow your arm off or blow a potion up in your face.

Then again, the fact that unforgivable curses are so heavily driven by emotions means they could be especially dangerous for someone with a hot temper or intense emotions for whatever reason, like Sebastian clearly has... it's a theme that ties to the main story where we see Isidora's obsession with removing any and all pain from the world. It was far too personal for her and that obsession was what really drove her mad, probably, not the inherent evilness of the magic itself. She had a huge hero/savior complex and went all mad scientist.

[Tho <3]

Originally posted by rservello:

Originally posted by Tho:

Yet another case where the OP crucifies (pun intended) every comments not aligning with his narrative and dismisses them, while agreeing with people fitting his narrative...

I knew there was no point in even trying to explain...

WTF, I'm not dismissing anyone...I'm simply saying, Cuz tha books isn't a good enough reason. I didn't read the books and found the movies boring. It shouldn't be a prerequisite to play a game. I like fantasy RPG so I figured this could be a really good candidate with so much lore to lean on...but not using that lore and just assuming the player has a massive knowledge base going in is just bad writing, plain and simple.

I NEVER REFENCED THE BOOKS ...

Clearly dismissing most of the replies.
Actually listen to the things we tell you over and over again.

The game doesnt have a morality system (stated that before), your choiced wont have a big effect or even at all besides the sorting (stated that too).

Most of us gave you this explanation + adding onto that, that the dialog (that you clearly dismiss too, cause its "not important") refences most of the points made by other people regarding lore.

And for the love of god... HARRY POTTER is a book for children where you see them age and mature with every further edition and so its getting more serious later on.

I dont know why you are so clinging onto points that we have cleared up
- No morality system in the game itself
- The curses were probably allowed 100-200years back what you AGAIN get from a DIALOG. In which its a LAW that forbids people from using it while also having an effect on someone soul / personality.

Youre so stubborn that it really is in question if you just want to push your point and die on that hill or simply spew out the same lines over and over again.

[Ultima]

Tbf, Arresto Momentum exists, which would have had the same result without murder. But yeah, overall the morals in the Harry Potter universe in regards to the unforgivable curses are kinda silly.

[Grenith]

Howart's Legacy Logic:

*Uses magic to literally smash a person repeatedly into the ground until their bones are liquefied and their agonised screams are silenced* = Perfectly fine for my teenage wizard to do. I'm the hero.

*Casts glowing green laser that instantly kills a person* = "Oh, well now you've gone too far!"

[Aiyzo]

Real answer is spoilers but lets just say the uncle has a personal history with the unforgivable curses and may be a bit more sensitive than he should be....

[that damn guy]

Sabastion's Uncle was a self righteous hypocritical idiot to begin with! I, for one, was happy to see what his fate was!

[Marlile]

Unforgiveable Curses were not always classified as illegal in this universe, but they eventually became that way. It's completely bonkers to complain that there's other ways to go about killing as if that justifies the use of spells whose sole purpose is torture, murder, and the stripping of free will. Bombarda can clear rubble - Avada Kedavra cannot. Diffindo can cut away vines or other obstacles. Crucio cannot. Whether you agree or disagree with their illegal nature in the canon is completely up to you, but the fact remains that's what they're classified as. To use Crucio properly, you need to want to see that person in pain, and it can't be a righteous anger either, it needs to be a hateful, evil thought, much like a true Patronus requires a joyful, happy thought (technically the Crucio door in the Scriptorium never should've been a thing... I genuinely don't believe any students in that room would've been capable of casting it). These are implicitly evil spells whose sole purposes are evil and can never be used without a true, genuine loathing in your heart. Imperio is somewhat of the exception, as you merely need to want to use it (Harry using it to enter Gringotts, for example), but there's obviously never any justification for stripping away a human being's free will, so it gets chucked in the bin with the other two Curses.

[Kitna]

Originally posted by 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"

I do agree there should be some morality system in the game. I have to disagree over the Uncle's reaction. I'll try to explain...

The three unforgivable curses only work if the person casting, genuinely means it. (This was explained in the game btw) Harry Potter once cast Crucio but it only lasted a second if that because he wasn't truly that vindictive at heart. He was angry. Thus the spell didn't really work. For someone to cast such a harmful spell, there needs to be a lot of hate in their being... thus having no doubt in their intentions. Casting a fire spell for example, you're only provable intent is to set an object (or person) on fire.

The reason they are on unforgivable and are meant to be taken seriously is due to the intention behind the caster. There is no doubt what you meant to do. This is why I agree there should have been some morality system in the game because yes, the Uncle's reaction was correct, everyone else's reaction to it was not.

[Frizbee]

Originally posted by 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"

They missed an opportunity with the Unforgivable curses. Especially since its a skill tree that makes the game way easier, even on the hardest difficulty (turning regular spells into curses with DOTs and allowing multiple enemy to be killed simultaneously etc). I would have liked to have seen a punishment for putting points into that tree. Ie. a "not the best" ending.

That said, in lore, the three unforgivable curses were legal in world until the year 1717. And were only illegal to use against humans. (Source: the books, though Barty Crouch Jnr could have been lying when he was pretending to be the Professor, however he used all three against a spider without punishment, and Harry Potter also uses Imperio several times in Gringots without later censure for it.)

Also during the First Wizarding War, the ministry of magic gave permission to Aurors to use all three. And during the second Wizarding war, it was also made legal.


Which means the move to ban the thee "unforgivable" curses was simply necessary in order to keep the peace and keep the wizarding world hidden from Muggles.

Specifically, it wasn't the fact that Avara Kedavra could kill that make it unforgivable, it was the nature of the death it caused, and the fact it was so powerful.

Imperio was banned because it made innocent people do the will of the caster. (Though it was possible to resist.)

And crucio was banned because it was torture, for no purpose.

And there's the fact that for all three, unlike other curses, you had to really WANT to cause pain or death to be able to use them.


In short, the Uncle was mad, not specifically because Sebastian used Imperio (because it was technically not illegal to use it on a goblin), but because of what it meant for Sebastian's state of mind and intent. Which concerned him, because it indicated darkness, lack of remorse, pity and mercy in someone he loved and truly was trying to protect.

[Simbe]

Be a student.
Have Sebastian teach you the unforgivable curses.
Turn him in.
Become the master.

[Dream hunter zero]

Originally posted by Kitna:

The three unforgivable curses only work if the person casting, genuinely means it. (This was explained in the game btw) Harry Potter once cast Crucio but it only lasted a second if that because he wasn't truly that vindictive at heart. He was angry. Thus the spell didn't really work. For someone to cast such a harmful spell, there needs to be a lot of hate in their being... thus having no doubt in their intentions. Casting a fire spell for example, you're only provable intent is to set an object (or person) on fire.

Because setting someone on fire is not proof of the intent to harm or kill ?

I'am sorry casting incendio on someone should be morally equal to casting crucio because:
A: the intent is the same to harm
B: the result is the same (if not worse 3rd degree burns can hurt for the rest of your life)

So if the only difference is but crucio can only be used to inflict pain that seems too small of a difference to make it unforgivable.

I mean a wizard who used difindo to cut a man bit by bit would be somehow more morally acceptable than the same wizard using the unforgivalbles for the same result how does that make sense ?

Same intent, same result just different tool. This why i argue that the lore does not make sense (or does not communicate well) on why the unforgivables are ''unforgivable''

[Dream hunter zero]

In fact i just thought of something twisted:

Technically avada kedavra could be considered a safer spell than say difindo because you cannot accidentaly kill someone with avada kedavra (as you have to mean it) so technically wizards mock duelling would be safer by casting avada kedavra than by casting say incendio !

[Shahadem]

Calling the curses "unforgivable" was more artistic license than something which would have realistically occurred in the Harry Potter world.

As someone said, the first book was a children's book. Calling something "unforgivable" makes the morality easy for a child to understand. There is absolutely no need to go further than this analysis as this is the center of the tootsie roll pop.

[Frizbee]

Originally posted by Dream hunter zero:

In fact i just thought of something twisted:

Technically avada kedavra could be considered a safer spell than say difindo because you cannot accidentaly kill someone with avada kedavra (as you have to mean it) so technically wizards mock duelling would be safer by casting avada kedavra than by casting say incendio !

Actually you can. Patricia Rakepick aimed the curse at Ben Copper, but Rowan jumped in the way, sacrificing their life in the process.

The thing with Avada Kedavra is that it is essentially unblockable (ie. Protego, and other shield spells are ineffective against it.) Only dodging it, an effect like Priori Incantate, or putting something solid between you and the caster (for example: a Phoenix, a statue, or another living creature) will stop it. (Or of course, the protection of sacrificial love magic.)

That unblockable fact, and the required prerequisite was the intent to murder someone to cast it effectively, is what makes Avada an unforgivable curse, as opposed to regular charms and curses, a lot of which COULD be used to kill.

Also, it was only technically illegal to use the unforgivable curses against another human, as demonstrated by Harry Potter repeatedly using Imperio in Gringots, and Barty Crouch Jnr using all three on a spider in a classroom full of kids without punishment.

[Dream hunter zero]

Originally posted by Frizbee:

Originally posted by Dream hunter zero:

In fact i just thought of something twisted:

Technically avada kedavra could be considered a safer spell than say difindo because you cannot accidentaly kill someone with avada kedavra (as you have to mean it) so technically wizards mock duelling would be safer by casting avada kedavra than by casting say incendio !

Actually you can. Patricia Rakepick aimed the curse at Ben Copper, but Rowan jumped in the way, sacrificing their life in the process.

The thing with Avada Kedavra is that it is essentially unblockable (ie. Protego, and other shield spells are ineffective against it.) Only dodging it, an effect like Priori Incantate, or putting something solid between you and the caster (for example: a Phoenix, a statue, or another living creature) will stop it. (Or of course, the protection of sacrificial love magic.)

That unblockable fact, and the required prerequisite was the intent to murder someone to cast it effectively, is what makes Avada an unforgivable curse, as opposed to regular charms and curses, a lot of which COULD be used to kill.

Also, it was only technically illegal to use the unforgivable curses against another human, as demonstrated by Harry Potter repeatedly using Imperio in Gringots, and Barty Crouch Jnr using all three on a spider in a classroom full of kids without punishment.

Well in the situation i describe wizards are mock dueling meaning there is no intent to kill so even if a third party jumped in the spell would not kill the interposer.

In fact barty jr says so when telling the kids that even if they were to cast avada kedavra at him this isntant he doubts they would be able to give him more than a noose bleed.

hence avada kedavra being unblockable has no impact in this situation as it would not kill.