Why are Unforgivable Curses a big deal?

[Certified Lawyer Boy]

So Hogwarts Legacy made me realize how pointless it is to separate and outlaw the 3 Unforgivable Curses in the Wizarding World.

You can easily burn, freeze, annihilate, crush, slice and transform people with magic taught to 15 year old school children, but if you Avada Kedavra someone and he dies peacefully, it is worse than transforming him into an exploding barrel and throwing him into his friend.

By the same logic, It is worse to use Crucio on someone rather than burning them alive with magical flames.

Imperio is the only curse that truly is sinister on its own, considering all the horrific uses it can have (and there is no other spell that can do mind control to my knowledge), but consider Petrificus Totalus, another spell that 15 year old can learn that takes away control over your body while keeping you conscious, imagine all the nightmare scenarios that can arise from a spell like that.

The best argument against this that I could come up with was that Unforgivable Curses require intent and are designed for a dark purpose. So for example Avada Kedavra works only if you intend to kill a being, and it's only use is killing thus it is bad. But what about hunting animals with Avada Kedavra, or killing insects or euthanizing someone, it can have many uses outside of just straight up murder, like any other legal spell.

The argument of "intent and purpose" could be used to outlaw any spell really.

TLDR: In a world where it is so easy to kill, maim or take advantage of someone with magic, why even bother outlawing and stigmatizing some spells as Unforgivable Curses.

#LeagaliseCurses #TeachDarkArts

[Urieaal]

none of you currently posting seem to have any idea what your talking about.

the unforgivable curses are so named, because they require intention behind the magic.

its explained in both the movies and the books.

4th book/movie: professor moody : casting avada kadvra and not meaning to kill someone would not give me much more then a nose bleed.

6th book/movie: Bellatrix Lestrange Your righteous fury will not hurt for very long potter, you have to really mean it.

it is explained many times in the books. none of you currently posting nor the op seem to have read the books.

[Harris]

Okay, now I want a DLC where I can become a Dark Lord, take over the Ministry and make Unforgivables legal again.

[EleventhStar]

people always use the argument that the unforgivable curses corrupt the user.

but there is myriad of evidence of dark magic in general corrupting the user, and they can never point out if/why the unforgivable cursres corrupt you more/less/thesame/in a different way as that magic.

[Borland30]

Publicado originalmente por Urieaal:

the unforgivable curses are so named, because they require intention behind the magic.

If you cast Bombarda or Diffindo at human's head, does it not require intent to kill? Or cast said human from the cliff?
When you burn people alive with Incedio, do you not require intent to let them suffer horribly?

[EleventhStar]

Publicado originalmente por Urieaal:

none of you currently posting seem to have any idea what your talking about.

the unforgivable curses are so named, because they require intention behind the magic.

its explained in both the movies and the books.

4th book/movie: professor moody : casting avada kadvra and not meaning to kill someone would not give me much more then a nose bleed.

6th book/movie: Bellatrix Lestrange Your righteous fury will not hurt for very long potter, you have to really mean it.

it is explained many times in the books. none of you currently posting nor the op seem to have read the books.

that's not an explanation. it's reverse logic.

it's like saying you aren't guilty of a crime because your attempt failed. wooptidoo now you go to prison for attempted robbery/murder instead of actual robbery/murder.

[Rezzier]

Crucio - you can only use if you intend to make someone feel pain - torture spell - no more explanation needed
Imperio - mind control - again, takes your free will, no other uses
Avada - Instant kill - you are passing judgement - you are not the law

[Nejc]

Forgive the long post. I did a lot of thinking about this. IMO there is nothing evil about using AK in the lore.

AFAIK:
In the wizarding world these spells simply have a bad rep. This is further exacerbated by the fact that if someone gets killed by incendio, a crime needs to be reported, whereas if someone gets killed by AK, the Aurors are immediately dispatched to investigate, since there is no other use of the spell. This then further fuels into the culture, even though any murder is a ticket to Azkaban regardless of the spell used.

It's just culture. Kind of like how countries refused to use gas chambers for death row inmates because of historical implications, even if other methods were slower, more painful etc.

If we say AK needs murderous intent we get lore holes with good people using it:
- Aurors used it during the wizarding wars,
- US magical Congress used it in 1927 for beasts control,
- Barty Crouch demonstrated it without getting removed from kids for supposedly admitting he has murderous intents since he was able to cast it,
- Snape used it on Dumbledore after even saying that does it ever occur to him that he does not want to do this, yet still could, after showing nothing but empathy and compassion in year 7,
- Haven't played far enough so correct me if I'm wrong, but In this game it is used by a good professor to save students
- And if we say all unforgivables require nefarious intent, then Harry is also evil since he successfully cast Imperio to break into Gringotts.

People here keep bringing up what Barty Crouch said and what Bellatrix and Voldemort said to show it needs murderous intent. And what rest of lore says about soul splitting. And what it says about it being a direct ticket to Azkaban. I'll take them one by one:

1. Barty only said this:

Avada Kedavra’s a curse that needs a powerful bit of magic behind it - you could all get your wands out and point them at me and say the words, and I doubt I’d get so much as a nosebleed

So nothing about murderous intent. This is just skill related. This is just the same as when McGonagall said in first year that as first years you will struggle to turn a tooth pick into a match or something along those lines.

2. Bellatrix and Voldemort said that you need to mean it. This can be interpreted in 3 different ways:

2a) You need to mean it murderously, but then we have lore holes mentioned above (Aurors and US congress, Barty Crouch, Snape etc.)

2b) You need to mean it in a sense that you are confident and sure that this is necessary and that you are not going to regret killing someone for the rest of your life. Basically if you are hesitating the spell wont work. This can be true in real life as well when victims are not able to shoot their attacker. This interpretation leaves no lore holes.

2c) We already know that before going into Hogwarts, Harry could make the glass disappear and make Dudley fall into the snake vivarium. This was done using strong anger. So emotions can be used to substitute skill since later a first year would struggle turning a toothpick into a match. Bellatrix and Voldemort might have simply meant that as a 16/17
year old, Harry has no required skill to cast AK as he is no Auror, and only if he really means it emotionally or hatefully will he be able to. This interpretation also leaves no lore holes and is my favorite interpretation.

3. Regarding soul splitting.
There is nothing regarding souls splitting that says AK in particular requires murderous intent, just that if there is murderous intent or evilness, then murder with any spell can be used to spilt souls. Not all 7 horcruxes were even made using AK, only 5, and one soul split/horcrux even without a death (Harry) - only with intent to kill.

4. Regarding AK being a direct ticket to Azkaban. It was also said that if one proves they were under Imperio, there is an exception. There could simply be other exceptions, but the character doesn't mention them. Otherwise we have lore holes as mentioned above.
It is also possible that the wizarding world is very ideological, as at some points is seems like they are more like Alkaida who runs Afghanistan. Examples: Umbridge tortures Harry and no arrest. Ministry is a bunch of idiots at times. Headmaster of Durmstarng - Karkaroff is an ex death eater as well as Snape. In the real world, even if vindicated, ex convicts would not be allowed to work in a school imo. So these ruler regarding unforgivables might simply be irrational as well.

It's also worth pointing out that some have implied that JKR is not always consistent with writing and sometimes forgets what she wrote years ago, leading to lore holes.

It's been a long time since I read the books so apologies if I got something wrong, and please correct me.

[Rezzier]

Publicado originalmente por njc:

Forgive the long post. I did a lot of thinking about this. There is nothing evil about using AK.

AFAIK:
In the wizarding world these spells simply have a bad rep. This is further exacerbated by the fact that if someone gets killed by incendio, a crime needs to be reported, whereas if someone gets killed by AK, the Aurors are immediately dispatched to investigate, since there is no other use of the spell. This then further fuels into the culture, even though any murder is a ticket to Azkaban regardless of the spell used.

It's just culture. Kind of like how countries refused to use gas chambers for death row inmates because of historical implications, even if other methods were slower, more painful etc.

If we say AK needs murderous intent we get lore holes with good people using it:
- Aurors used it during the wizarding wars,
- US magical Congress used it in 1927 for beasts control,
- Barty Crouch demonstrated it without getting removed from kids for supposedly admitting he has murderous intents since he was able to cast it,
- Snape used it on Dumbledore after even saying that does it ever occur to him that he does not want to do this, yet still could, after showing nothing but empathy and compassion in year 7,
- Haven't played far enough so correct me if I'm wrong, but In this game it is used by a good professor to save students
- And if we say all unforgivables require nefarious intent, then Harry is also evil since he successfully cast Imperio to break into Gringotts.

People here keep bringing up what Barty Crouch said and what Bellatrix and Voldemort said to show it needs murderous intent. And what rest of lore says about soul splitting. And what it says about it being a direct ticket to Azkaban. I'll take them one by one:

1. Barty only said this:

Avada Kedavra’s a curse that needs a powerful bit of magic behind it - you could all get your wands out and point them at me and say the words, and I doubt I’d get so much as a nosebleed

So nothing about murderous intent. This is just skill related. This is just the same as when McGonagall said in first year that as first years you will struggle to turn a tooth pick into a match or something along those lines.

2. Bellatrix and Voldemort said that you need to mean it. This can be interpreted in 3 different ways.

2a) You need to mean it murderously, but then we have lore holes mentioned above (Aurors and US congress, Barty Crouch, Snape etc.)

2b) You need to mean it in a sense that you are confident and sure that this is necessary and that you are not going to regret killing someone for the rest of your life. Basically if you are hesitating the spell wont work. This can be true in real life as well when victims are not able to shoot their attacker. This interpretation leaves no lore holes.

2c) We already know that before going into Hogwarts, Harry could make the glass disappear and make Dudley fall into the snake vivarium. This was done using strong anger. So emotions can be used to substitute skill since later a first year would struggle turning a toothpick into a match. Bellatrix and Voldemort might have simply meant that as a 16/17
year old, Harry has no required skill to cast AK as he is no Auror, and only if he really means it emotionally or hatefully will he be able to. This interpretation also leaves no lore holes and is my favorite interpretation.

3. Regarding soul splitting.
There is nothing regarding souls splitting that says AK in particular requires murderous intent, just that if there is murderous intent or evilness, then murder with any spell can be used to spilt souls. Not all 7 horcruxes were even made using AK, only 5, and one soul split/horcrux even without a death (Harry) - only with intent to kill.

4. Regarding AK being a direct ticket to Azkaban. It was also said that if one proves they were under Imperio, there is an exception. There could simply be other exceptions, but the character doesn't mention them. Otherwise we have lore holes as mentioned above.
It is also possible that the wizarding world is very ideological, as at some points is seems like they are more like Alkaida who runs Afghanistan. Examples: Umbridge tortures Harry and no arrest. Ministry is a bunch of idiots at times. Headmaster of Durmstarng - Karkaroff is an ex death eater as well as Snape. In the real world, even if vindicated, ex convicts would not be allowed to work in a school imo. So these ruler regarding unforgivables might simply be irrational as well.

It's also worth pointing out that some have implied that JKR is not always consistent with writing and sometimes forgets what she wrote years ago, leading to lore holes.

It's been a long time since I read the books so apologies if I got something wrong, and please correct me.

i believe its all about the intent.
"Avada - Instant kill - you are passing judgement - you are not the law"
This should summ it, but i aggree that not all situations are similar, since you can use it on other living things. thus you are right on the part that its the spell reputation. on Avada, crucio and imperio are just downright bad xD

[Stonehand]

Publicado originalmente por USER#76561198098529945:

Publicado originalmente por pieceofyarn:

Umm I mean did you read the books? This whole world was a book written over 20 years ago. It never started out as an idea for a game.

Well the legal spells are never used to kill/harm people in the books, but they can be, as demonstrated by the game which, incidentally, takes place in the same universe, so I don't see how reading the books is relevant in any way to the conversation.

The reason the books are relevant to the conversation is that the original story, as told in the books, outlaws the Unforgivable spells, and that is where this notion derives from in this game. As to why the unforgivable spells are outlawed, you should play through the Third Keeper Trial and watch the memory that follows immediately at the end of the trial. That will show you, quite clearly, why the unforgivable spells are outlawed by all decent wizards and witches.

For anyone who might have missed the significance of that story, I will explain THE MESSAGE of the story. The Unforgivable Spells are of the dark arts and they are alluring and addictive. They are so addictive that Voldemort began bathing himself in other people's pain, just as Isadora was doing in that pensieve memory. That should be enough explanation for anyone, but you might ought to make a new character and replay through the whole story of Sebastian and watch his obsession with dark magic as it becomes the center of his life - another Voldemort in the making.

That addiction and obsession with things of darkness is downright evil. It is the very heart of what "evil" is. THAT is why they are unforgivable and outlawed.

If you read the books (and not just watched the movies) you would know this with crystal clarity. That is why the books are relevant to this conversation and to this game.

[EleventhStar]

Publicado originalmente por ⌜Rezzier⌟:

Crucio - you can only use if you intend to make someone feel pain - torture spell - no more explanation needed

sure.

Imperio - mind control - again, takes your free will, no other uses

plenty of medical and judicial uses. if cast by a skillful caster it's not traumatic.

Avada - Instant kill - you are passing judgement - you are not the law

but there are lots of legal killings that happen everyday. and it's described as extremely humane.

[Man of Culture]

Publicado originalmente por USER#76561198098529945:

So Hogwarts Legacy made me realize how pointless it is to separate and outlaw the 3 Unforgivable Curses in the Wizarding World.

You can easily burn, freeze, annihilate, crush, slice and transform people with magic taught to 15 year old school children, but if you Avada Kedavra someone and he dies peacefully, it is worse than transforming him into an exploding barrel and throwing him into his friend.

By the same logic, It is worse to use Crucio on someone rather than burning them alive with magical flames.

Imperio is the only curse that truly is sinister on its own, considering all the horrific uses it can have (and there is no other spell that can do mind control to my knowledge), but consider Petrificus Totalus, another spell that 15 year old can learn that takes away control over your body while keeping you conscious, imagine all the nightmare scenarios that can arise from a spell like that.

The best argument against this that I could come up with was that Unforgivable Curses require intent and are designed for a dark purpose. So for example Avada Kedavra works only if you intend to kill a being, and it's only use is killing thus it is bad. But what about hunting animals with Avada Kedavra, or killing insects or euthanizing someone, it can have many uses outside of just straight up murder, like any other legal spell.

The argument of "intent and purpose" could be used to outlaw any spell really.

TLDR: In a world where it is so easy to kill, maim or take advantage of someone with magic, why even bother outlawing and stigmatizing some spells as Unforgivable Curses.

#LeagaliseCurses #TeachDarkArts

I can sum this up pretty well using existing lore and inserting none of my own opinions into it.

1.) Avada Kadavra is a literal instant kill and cannot be countered with magic unless extremely specific conditions are met outside the realm of normal magic like matching cores or someone using a wand against it's owner without it agreeing to it. You can't mend someone who is dead either. If someone is burned alive or has their body broken or their brain even physically damaged you can mend that using magic or at the very least defend against it.

2.) Crucio. This is like the distilled essence of torture. It's so effective at that specific purpose that it damages the psyche as we can see with Neville Longbottoms parents. They didn't recover. They're basically mentally damaged vegetables roaming around St. Mungos and even magic can't fix that. You could argue Obliviate is also something similar but I guess even if you erased an adults entire lifetime of memories you still have what amounts to a person who is totally capable of re-learning everything they forgot.

3.) Imperio. Being able to control someone and make them do whatever you want is pretty disgusting and overpowered. I mean look at what Harry was able to do with it when he could barely cast it. It helped him break into one of the most guarded facilities on Earth. It let Voldemort create sleeper agents all over the world without having to have leverage over them. It's not a bribe. It's not blackmail. It's a spell that compels the person to do the bidding of the caster and if the person who does it is powerful enough it's incredibly hard, if not impossible, to resist.

[bob]

Yeah, you're right. But it's a game for console tards. That's why it's as deep as the Venice Canales at the moment. Same with those stupid moths and Accio puzzles all the time. What are we, like 7 years? I do hope however there'll be some nice addons, mods or Steam-Workshop-Stuff to make this a really great game.

[JungHeinz]

Yep, I really don't get why Obliviate is not forbidden as well... it's basically a raping curse. And if done poorly, it can mess with a head so much you can irrecoverably end up with dementia. It's just a other side of Imperius.

[Rezzier]

Imperio - mind control - again, takes your free will, no other uses.

plenty of medical and judicial uses. if cast by a skillful caster it's not traumatic.

It takes your free will . medical uses? wich one? you still feed pain under imperio do you not?

Avada - Instant kill - you are passing judgement - you are not the law

but there are lots of legal killings that happen everyday. and it's described as extremely humane.

not in my country. i dont live in america were they sentence people to death.

[Darhaksterion]

Publicado originalmente por Borland30:

Publicado originalmente por Urieaal:

the unforgivable curses are so named, because they require intention behind the magic.

If you cast Bombarda or Diffindo at human's head, does it not require intent to kill? Or cast said human from the cliff?
When you burn people alive with Incedio, do you not require intent to let them suffer horribly?

Those are all spells that fo things that are potentially lethal, but their use is not limited to harming others. You can use incendio to light up a bonfire, or diffindo to free someone who got tangled in a net (or a giant spider's web). The unforgivables can only be used to control, torture or kill. You're comparing a torch to a shotgun. Of course a torch can cause harm, but it's not its only purpose.