Which curse is the most unforgivable

[Eternal_Freedom]

I was talking more historically, during Fudge's reign and prior to that. Naturally some major changes to the way magical law is enforced are going to happen post-Deathly Hallows.

[The Romulan Republic]

So does that mean they might implement a death penalty? Or simply step up non-Dementor security at Azkaban?

Edit: Mind you, the Dementor's kiss was effectively killing someone.

[Eternal_Freedom]

I think it could go either way. I tihnk they'd certainly consider executing captured Death EAters, but after that they would probably go for a non-Dementor staffed Azkaban.

[ray245]

So does that mean they might implement a death penalty? Or simply step up non-Dementor security at Azkaban?

Edit: Mind you, the Dementor's kiss was effectively killing someone.

If you want to take Rowling's words, they simply replaced them with normal guards.

[Eulogy]

Imperius, hands down. Say what you will about the other two, but Imperius can do anything they can do (albeit indirectly) and - here's the thing - so much more. Use it on the right (or wrong, depending on perspective) person, and you can cause suffering and death en masse, the likes of which even a thousand other wizards spamming the other two curses cannot even approach. Or hell, you can just take that person's power, connections, and assets for yourself.

Of course, the more Imperius you throw around, the more nastiness you can spread. And as long as you're not dumb enough to use on anyone who has other wizards watching out for them, you even get away with it. That's a hell of a lot more threatening than a magical torturer or sniper.

[Korto]

A little pain never hurt anyone, but I'd sooner die than lose control of my mind.

[Tribble]

So does that mean they might implement a death penalty? Or simply step up non-Dementor security at Azkaban?

Edit: Mind you, the Dementor's kiss was effectively killing someone.

Ummmm, the Dementor's kiss is far worse than merely killing someone. It is literally sucking up the person's soul to eat it. Would you prefer that over Avada Kedavra?

A little pain never hurt anyone, but I'd sooner die than lose control of my mind.

I don't think Crucio counts as "a little pain" when you can literally be tortured into an irreversible insanity by it. Seeing as you effectively lose control of your mind in that state, I presume you'd also prefer to die then end up like Neville's parents?

[Eternal_Freedom]

I'd go so far as to say that Avada Kedavra is the least "unforgiveable" of the three, since all it does is kill you, and apparently instantly and painlessly. That's certainly an improvement over "can torture you into permanent insanity with the pain" or "mind-rape you into doing unspeakaby evil things with little chance of resisting."

[TOSDOC]

Very nicely said. They're unforgiveable because to use them (effectively), you must be a person who puts themselves out of reach of forgiveness.

I'm not sure I agree with that completely. Harry's situation was as desperate as it gets in Gringott's when he used the Imperius curse, and I could see the Wizarding World forgiving his actions considering what had to be accomplished and what was at risk. Likewise, Severus was already forgiven by Dumbledore himself, who was pleading with him to use the killing curse to relieve his suffering and save Malfoy's own soul. IIRC, Severus himself was concerned about his own soul and the killing curse's effect on it, but Dumbledore himself seemed reassuring at the time.

Of the three, the Cruciatus seems the most evil and unforgivable. The other two instances above reflect where these "unforgivable" curses could have their uses for good, but inflicting pain for its own sake does not when there are other alternatives to stopping a person (Stun/Disarm) or interrogating them (Legilimens).

Here's some questions: Would you mind if a veterinarian used Avada Kedavra for humane euthanasia of a suffering animal? Could a Karate sensei use Imperio to help train a student with a difficult martial arts move?

[Ted C]

All are pretty horrible, but I can't conceive of a situation in which the Cruciatus would have a non-criminal use.

[Captain Seafort]

Would you mind if a veterinarian used Avada Kedavra for humane euthanasia of a suffering animal?

That's fine under the existing definition, since the "Unforgiveable" aspect only applies to their use on humans.

Could a Karate sensei use Imperio to help train a student with a difficult martial arts move?

I don't see how - there's no indication that the Imperius imparts knowledge to the individual being controlled any more than string imparts knowledge to a puppet.

[TOSDOC]

Would you mind if a veterinarian used Avada Kedavra for humane euthanasia of a suffering animal?

That's fine under the existing definition, since the "Unforgiveable" aspect only applies to their use on humans.

Could a Karate sensei use Imperio to help train a student with a difficult martial arts move?

I don't see how - there's no indication that the Imperius imparts knowledge to the individual being controlled any more than string imparts knowledge to a puppet.

Not knowledge, muscle memory.

As far as humans only, fair enough. So we're back to Dumbledore--if he forgave Snape, it's not really Unforgivable.

[Metahive]

There are limits to what can be induced by the Imperius curse. Both Avada Kedavra and Cruciatus require a certain mindset to work correctly and if the controlled person doesn't have it they can't use those curses effectively. Since being controlled by Imperius is described as some sort of blissful unawareness I think that makes it even harder. Is there actually an example within the series where a mind-controlled person uses those spells? I can't think of one.

Cruciatus seems to me to be worst one since it requires one to be sadistic and it can turn people into vegetables (figuratively) if applied long enough, see Neville's parents.

Imperius is the one most abusable, but as can be seen, if used for too long people start building up an immunity to it.

[Panzersharkcat]

FOr that matter, given how many muggle-born and half-blood wizards and witch's exist, why has the idea of using Muggle weapons never occurred to them? Especially if you could charm them. A Refilling charm cast on the magazine, a silencing charm on the barrel, a disillusionment charm on the whole weapon, the possibilities are endless.

That happened in Harry Potter Comics. Muggleborn and a squib using magically enhanced Muggle weapons and equipment to commit crimes. It spirals a bit, too. The results aren't pretty. Spoiler

London nearly gets nuked by Islamic terrorists. It's only saved by every wizard and witch in London casting Protego Maxima and that blows the cover of the wizarding world. It also starts World War III, with magic-enhanced Muggle armies.

[The Romulan Republic]

There are limits to what can be induced by the Imperius curse. Both Avada Kedavra and Cruciatus require a certain mindset to work correctly and if the controlled person doesn't have it they can't use those curses effectively. Since being controlled by Imperius is described as some sort of blissful unawareness I think that makes it even harder. Is there actually an example within the series where a mind-controlled person uses those spells? I can't think of one.

Cruciatus seems to me to be worst one since it requires one to be sadistic and it can turn people into vegetables (figuratively) if applied long enough, see Neville's parents.

Imperius is the one most abusable, but as can be seen, if used for too long people start building up an immunity to it.

Imperious can be resisted by anyone with a strong enough mind. Harry could resist it at fourteen.

[Irbis]

It is curious why Avada Kedavra is considered unforgivable, to the point where using it on another being in any circumstance (Auror's in the Wizarding War notwithstanding) gets you a lifetime in Azkaban (which is a horrific place in it's own right). We know there are other fatal curses (Bellatrix kills Sirius with something, Molly doesn't just kill Bellatrix but shatters her, and so on), and using those does not bring "automatic life sentence," so why is Avada so "special"?

Maybe it's some sort of dark side of the force equivalent?

Anyway, while mind control is horrible, doesn't Harryverse have easy, quick, and cheap access to memory removal? If you can repair any damage from mind control instantly, it would be seen as much less 'bad' than irreversible death, wouldn't it? Though this begs the question why they didn't use this on Neville to cure his PTSD.

FOr that matter, given how many muggle-born and half-blood wizards and witch's exist, why has the idea of using Muggle weapons never occurred to them? Especially if you could charm them. A Refilling charm cast on the magazine, a silencing charm on the barrel, a disillusionment charm on the whole weapon, the possibilities are endless.

Technology supposedly works bad around magic. Of course, since they have alchemy, there must be some sort of working gunpowder equivalent, but would refilling spell be able to create bullets out of thin air? I don't think so.

If I like anything about Fate/Zero, it's exploration of magical society and its interaction with guns and modern technology through protagonist who uses it to equalize chances in combat. Though, they do much less than they would in HP England as Fate wizards don't dick around with spells and actually are smart in using their magical arsenals to the fullest. See this for example:

[The Romulan Republic]

What are you basing Neville having PTSD on? It wouldn't surprise me, given everything he went through, but I don't think their was anything of the sort in the books. Perhaps you're thinking of his parents, who had extremely severe mental damage as a result of severe torture with the Cruciatus Curse (to the point that they were complete invalids living in a hospital).

[Simon_Jester]

Obliviating people of their memories changes what they remember, but it doesn't necessarily change their thought processes. If you fight a war and it gives you PTSD... hm. Suppose the PTSD makes you hypervigilant and gives you flashbacks. They can probably erase the flashbacks by removing the memories that trigger them. But they can't necessarily erase the hypervigilance, any more than removing the memory of how you lost a finger would give you back the finger.

So it might well not be possible to treat mental illness purely by erasing people's memories of how they got the mental illness. Although deliberately implanting false memories might be a useful part of therapy for the illness itself, sometimes.

[cmdrjones]

In the Harry Potter Universe there are three curses which are listed as unforgivable. Use of them on human beings is banned (save for limited and controversial use by Aurors against Voldemort and his death eaters and when Voldemort was in power due to him being evil and all) and punishable by a lifetime in prison. They are as such...

• (Crucio) Cruciatus Curse: Inflicts upon the victim unbearable Pain, it not cause physical damage but it can do a lot of psychological damage.
• (Imperio) Imperius Curse: Puts the victim in thrall of the caster. In of itself it does no harm to the victim but they will obey the caster to the point in which they would commit suicide if ordered.
• (Avada Kedavra) Killing Curse: Makes living things drop dead. A direct hit from this curse can only be survived in a single very specific circumstance. Will blow apart nonliving matter.

Of these three curses which one do you think is the worst?

Zor

Ummm, it's phrased as "in the Harry potter Universe... etc etc etc" I've seen most of the movies, once or twice, but never read the books, can someone tell me why the wizards & witches etc consider these to be "unforgivable?" in the first place?


#1 could be used as a punishment
#2 could be used on the insane or violent
#3 could be used for hunting, execution, or euthanasia.

I don't see how these things deviate from the hogwarts way of doing things, so, whats the big deal?

[Eternal_Freedom]

It is curious why Avada Kedavra is considered unforgivable, to the point where using it on another being in any circumstance (Auror's in the Wizarding War notwithstanding) gets you a lifetime in Azkaban (which is a horrific place in it's own right). We know there are other fatal curses (Bellatrix kills Sirius with something, Molly doesn't just kill Bellatrix but shatters her, and so on), and using those does not bring "automatic life sentence," so why is Avada so "special"?

Maybe it's some sort of dark side of the force equivalent?

That is possible. Moody/Crouch says as much in Book Four. But I still can't get my head around why 1the Killing Curse is considered so evil. Though now that I think about it, there can't be "a powerful bit of Dark Magic" involved, otherwise the implication is that any Aurors were also using Dark magic and were thus becoming the very thing they're trying to stop.


I mean, I'm sure that using other fatal curses would get you a murder trial and possibly a life sentence in Azkaban, but the Killing Curse is an automatic sentence.

It's like, I dunno, if you should someone dead with a .357 Magnum round you go to trial, but if you use a .50 AE round you get thrown straight in jail and the key is thrown away. It's especially weird since the Killing Curse is apparently painless, unlike, say, Sectusempra which can easily be fatal and is very painful. Or what Molly does to Bellatrix, I can't imagine that (what looks like) getting turned to glass/ice and then shattered isn't more painful than a Killing Curse.

[Elheru Aran]

Ummm, it's phrased as "in the Harry potter Universe... etc etc etc" I've seen most of the movies, once or twice, but never read the books, can someone tell me why the wizards & witches etc consider these to be "unforgivable?" in the first place?


#1 could be used as a punishment
#2 could be used on the insane or violent
#3 could be used for hunting, execution, or euthanasia.

I don't see how these things deviate from the hogwarts way of doing things, so, whats the big deal?

The books give a far more nuanced view of the HP universe with much more detail than the movies. Movies can't spend hours blasting the viewer with data. If you had read through the thread, you might have a better idea of why they're considered 'unforgivable'-- it comes down to specific spells being performed with a specific evil intent, which I imagine got a bad reputation over time.

[ray245]

It is curious why Avada Kedavra is considered unforgivable, to the point where using it on another being in any circumstance (Auror's in the Wizarding War notwithstanding) gets you a lifetime in Azkaban (which is a horrific place in it's own right). We know there are other fatal curses (Bellatrix kills Sirius with something, Molly doesn't just kill Bellatrix but shatters her, and so on), and using those does not bring "automatic life sentence," so why is Avada so "special"?

Maybe it's some sort of dark side of the force equivalent?

That is possible. Moody/Crouch says as much in Book Four. But I still can't get my head around why 1the Killing Curse is considered so evil. Though now that I think about it, there can't be "a powerful bit of Dark Magic" involved, otherwise the implication is that any Aurors were also using Dark magic and were thus becoming the very thing they're trying to stop.


I mean, I'm sure that using other fatal curses would get you a murder trial and possibly a life sentence in Azkaban, but the Killing Curse is an automatic sentence.

It's like, I dunno, if you should someone dead with a .357 Magnum round you go to trial, but if you use a .50 AE round you get thrown straight in jail and the key is thrown away. It's especially weird since the Killing Curse is apparently painless, unlike, say, Sectusempra which can easily be fatal and is very painful. Or what Molly does to Bellatrix, I can't imagine that (what looks like) getting turned to glass/ice and then shattered isn't more painful than a Killing Curse.

It is the intent that matters the most I suppose. Willing someone to die is probably worst than thinking of what is the most effective spell that can kill a wizard. Bearing in mind that wizards seem to take a lot more damage to most normal humans, having the will to end someone life is something abhorrent to wizards.

There might be a different between hurting someone so badly that they might die vs. ensuring they will definitely die from their own sense of morality.

Perhaps because of the existence of a soul, with ghost and everything existing, wizard society have a very different idea of what is important. We know that there is some sort of wizard afterlife, so death itself isn't as terrible as the real world. On the other hand, a soul that could so evil as to wish someone dead for enjoyment is something that will last for all of eternity.

It's not a good idea to use our idea of morality on a society so radically different to us in matters of life and death.

[cmdrjones]

Ummm, it's phrased as "in the Harry potter Universe... etc etc etc" I've seen most of the movies, once or twice, but never read the books, can someone tell me why the wizards & witches etc consider these to be "unforgivable?" in the first place?


#1 could be used as a punishment
#2 could be used on the insane or violent
#3 could be used for hunting, execution, or euthanasia.

I don't see how these things deviate from the hogwarts way of doing things, so, whats the big deal?

The books give a far more nuanced view of the HP universe with much more detail than the movies. Movies can't spend hours blasting the viewer with data. If you had read through the thread, you might have a better idea of why they're considered 'unforgivable'-- it comes down to specific spells being performed with a specific evil intent, which I imagine got a bad reputation over time.

That seems to be the debate.... evil intent vs evil 'use'
I'll make the (albeit admittedly ignorant) observation that the moral authority that determined which curses were 'unforgivable' is the governinmg body of the various schools of wizarding and witchery which, even for the movies, are obviously pretty morally compromised... hence the gray areas.

[Batman]

What gray areas? From what I remember a curse being 'unforgivable' was pretty damned digital. You use one and they catch you, you go to Azkaban, no questions asked.

[cmdrjones]

What gray areas? From what I remember a curse being 'unforgivable' was pretty damned digital. You use one and they catch you, you go to Azkaban, no questions asked.

I meant in the debating going on in the thread. What the hogwarts staff consider 'unforgivable' and the viewers debate about it are two different things. besides, in the goble of fire the imposter version of mad eye moody used them in class as a teaching tool and no one batted an eye.