Is Ancient Magic really any worse than Avada?

[Skungis]

I mean, I just don't see why shooting a beam that seemingly instantly and painlessly kills someone is considered "unforgivable" but I make people literally explode into ash (seemingly incredibly painfully) and everyone's like "woah nice teach me that".
Granted neither have any negative repercussions so it's a moot point but it's always funny how turning someone into a chicken FOREVER, scorching someone from the inside until they explode, or casting lightning down onto someone and turning them to dust gets me praise but I use an unforgivable once and people are like "Woah hey, don't use that"

[werwolfgaming]

Originally posted by Skungis:

I mean, I just don't see why shooting a beam that seemingly instantly and painlessly kills someone is considered "unforgivable" but I make people literally explode into ash (seemingly incredibly painfully) and everyone's like "woah nice teach me that".
Granted neither have any negative repercussions so it's a moot point but it's always funny how turning someone into a chicken FOREVER, scorching someone from the inside until they explode, or casting lightning down onto someone and turning them to dust gets me praise but I use an unforgivable once and people are like "Woah hey, don't use that"

avada is unforgivable for the same reason the other 2 are u have to mean it like moody says in goblet of fire "even if u all of u pointed ur wands at me and said the spell i doupt id even get a nose bleed" to use curcio u have to like torturing people cause pain to use imperio u have to want to controll people to use avada u have to really want to kill that person u have to mean it harry tried using crucio on bellatrix in the books he couldent do it even tho she killed sirius he was unable to like inflicting pain onto someone else so the spell stopped working thats why they are unforgivable

[Pointless]

Transfiguration, with the buff to turn someone into a bomb, and then blowing up the bomb..... It's a two step, that can you can a lot faster than Avada, and it kills just as surely. And, let's not forget Petrificus. They turn to dust, but... you'd be slitting throats to get it done, if the game wasn't for children. All magic is evil, if used for evil.

[Skungis]

Originally posted by werwolfgaming:

avada is unforgivable for the same reason the other 2 are u have to mean it like moody says in goblet of fire "even if u all of u pointed ur wands at me and said the spell i doupt id even get a nose bleed" to use curcio u have to like torturing people cause pain to use imperio u have to want to controll people to use avada u have to really want to kill that person u have to mean it harry tried using crucio on bellatrix in the books he couldent do it even tho she killed sirius he was unable to like inflicting pain onto someone else so the spell stopped working thats why they are unforgivable

Yeah like I get that but also I probably have to mean it to literally disintegrate him. I'm not questioning why the dark arts are bad, I'm wondering how ancient magic is any worse. No one knows what it is or how it works, all they see is I instantly killed someone extremely painfully.
The problem with those spells shouldn't just be "gasp he wanted to kill me" it should be "♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ he just instantly killed that guy with one spell". Obviously I wanted to kill that guy I just launched a fireball at and threw off a cliff, he was trying to kill me, but I also wanted to kill that guy I literally exploded from the inside.

[Harris]

Originally posted by werwolfgaming:

thats why they are unforgivable

Nah it's actually a philosophical issue. Not the first thread about this either.

Both Avada and ancient magic, or bombarda, or incendio are able to kill. Likely pretty painfully at that, too. So why is it unforgivable then?

To rephrase, what should be worse - the intention to kill or killing itself? Pretty sure it's the latter, killing someone even unintentionally is still a felony and depending on the country can get you quite a sentence.

Following this logic, any spell that can potentially kill or hurt someone should be unforgivable. Which is about any spell come to think of it. Even Lumos pointed to someone's eyes can probably blind someone if you do it right.

[Skungis]

Originally posted by Pointless:

Transfiguration, with the buff to turn someone into a bomb, and then blowing up the bomb..... It's a two step, that can you can a lot faster than Avada, and it kills just as surely. And, let's not forget Petrificus. They turn to dust, but... you'd be slitting throats to get it done, if the game wasn't for children. All magic is evil, if used for evil.

Oh yeah that one's really messed up although with mine they usually turn back right after they explode (which irl would've just been a bunch of meat chunks). I just have an issue with the ancient magic finishers looking just like the unforgivable curses and being unknown magic, 100% people would react worse to that than something they understood but feared.
For real though I want an R rated Harry Potter where we can address how messed up some of the magic is. We'll never get it, but seeing an actual transfiguration turned back after exploding would be great...in a really messed up way of course.

[werwolfgaming]

Originally posted by Harris:

Originally posted by werwolfgaming:

thats why they are unforgivable

Nah it's actually a philosophical issue. Not the first thread about this either.

Both Avada and ancient magic, or bombarda, or incendio are able to kill. Likely pretty painfully at that, too. So why is it unforgivable then?

To rephrase, what should be worse - the intention to kill or killing itself? Pretty sure it's the latter, killing someone even unintentionally is still a felony and depending on the country can get you quite a sentence.

Following this logic, any spell that can potentially kill or hurt someone should be unforgivable. Which is about any spell come to think of it. Even Lumos pointed to someone's eyes can probably blind someone if you do it right.

the thing is tho unlike with the 3 unforgivable spells the other mentioned can have pratical use outside off killing while the 3 unforgivable spells are litterally designed for people who wanna kill and torture

[Skungis]

Originally posted by Harris:

Originally posted by werwolfgaming:

thats why they are unforgivable

Nah it's actually a philosophical issue. Not the first thread about this either.

Both Avada and ancient magic, or bombarda, or incendio are able to kill. Likely pretty painfully at that, too. So why is it unforgivable then?

To rephrase, what should be worse - the intention to kill or killing itself? Pretty sure it's the latter, killing someone even unintentionally is still a felony and depending on the country can get you quite a sentence.

Following this logic, any spell that can potentially kill or hurt someone should be unforgivable. Which is about any spell come to think of it. Even Lumos pointed to someone's eyes can probably blind someone if you do it right.

Yeah I guess I am picking apart a children's book which pretty quickly makes it fall apart, but with Ancient Magic, I 100% wanted to kill that guy when I blew him up or slammed him into the ground like a ragdoll. It just feels like they wanted finishing moves and for people to be evil, but didn't want to have the finishers be alignment specific or something so my super nice innocent Ravenclaw slamming a human into the ground until they stop moving feels out of place.
If they were maybe a bit more ambiguous if they killed or not, it would let me just headcanon I'm knocking them out, but having them fully explode and turn to dust or be struck by lightning and disintegrated should freak people out as much as any unforgivable spell, if only because they don't understand it.

[Harris]

Originally posted by werwolfgaming:

the other mentioned can have pratical use outside off killing while the 3 unforgivable spells are litterally designed for people who wanna kill and torture

And what about Aurors allowed to use Avada to kill Death Eaters? Isn't that a practical use? Or San Bakar using it to protect students?

Pretty same concept as a soldier during a war. The deed is the same, but you can either go to jail or get a medal for it, so it's all a matter of perspective.

[werwolfgaming]

tho i do see ur points fully im just using the logic given to us by the books and films wich i get isent the same logic ur looking for while some spells definitally do seem cruelar it can be looked at like i said most other spells has uses outside off killing and can be used for good while the unforgivable once u have to wanna use them for the purpose they were made for wich is sadly killing torture and controlling people

[Star Rain]

i finally learned Crucio i been going nuts!

[Skungis]

Originally posted by werwolfgaming:

the thing is tho unlike with the 3 unforgivable spells the other mentioned can have pratical use outside off killing while the 3 unforgivable spells are litterally designed for people who wanna kill and torture

I'm not sure if this comment is unrelated since you're replying to someone else, but what practical uses outside of killing someone would exploding someone from the inside or striking them with lightning have?

[Skungis]

Originally posted by Harris:

Originally posted by werwolfgaming:

the other mentioned can have pratical use outside off killing while the 3 unforgivable spells are litterally designed for people who wanna kill and torture

And what about Aurors allowed to use Avada to kill Death Eaters? Isn't that a practical use? Or San Bakar using it to protect students?

Pretty same concept as a soldier during a war. The deed is the same, but you can either go to jail or get a medal for it, so it's all a matter of perspective.

Practical use for killing is still killing my dude. The point they were making is it's just used to kill

[Dreadstone]

The question you're asking is one I've bandied about in my lifetime. (*)

What's worse, to use an "Unforgivable" Curse to kill somebody, or burn them alive?

(*) What's worse - to pull the trigger, to be told to pull the trigger by your "Boss", or the person who tells your boss that somebody needs to pull the trigger.

[Skungis]

Originally posted by werwolfgaming:

tho i do see ur points fully im just using the logic given to us by the books and films wich i get isent the same logic ur looking for while some spells definitally do seem cruelar it can be looked at like i said most other spells has uses outside off killing and can be used for good while the unforgivable once u have to wanna use them for the purpose they were made for wich is sadly killing torture and controlling people

Again, 100% not asking why avada is bad, not the point I'm making it's obviously bad because it's killing. I'm just wondering why every spell that instantly kills isn't equally bad. Like, just have some people go "ummm...did you just kill him?" or something instead of "oh sick nice teach me that dude"

[Skungis]

Originally posted by Dreadstone:

The question you're asking is one I've bandied about in my lifetime. (*)

What's worse, to use an "Unforgivable" Curse to kill somebody, or burn them alive?

(*) What's worse - to pull the trigger, to be told to pull the trigger by your "Boss", or the person who tells your boss that somebody needs to pull the trigger.

Burn them alive 100% Someone saying "spell bad" is not as bad as burning someone alive next question