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
HAIL ZOR!WE'LL BLOW UP THE OCEAN!
Heros of Cybertron-HAB-Keeper of the Vicious pit of Allosauruses-King Leighton-I, United Kingdom of Zoria: SD.net World/Tsar Mikhail-I of the Red Tsardom: SD.net Kingdoms WHEN ALL HELL BREAKS LOOSE ON EARTH, ALL EARTH BREAKS LOOSE ON HELL Terran Sphere The Art of Zor
I would say the Imperio is worse. From what I see, the killing curse is just instant death. A magic bullet basically. Crucio is extremely painful but limited, it doesn't last forever. Imperio appears to have no effective time limit, and can be used to perform acts against the will of the cursed such as betrayal, rape, murder, even suicide. I think being made into an unwilling slave is worse than momentary pain (no matter how severe) or instant death.
Do you mean in an individual ethical sense or in the practical sense of what can do the most damage to society? The Imperio curse is by far the most variable, because you could just use it for a harmless (if unnerving) practical joke, or you could use it to force people to perform nearly unlimited depravities.
I think in either case, having an unwilling slave would do more harm both individually or to society, since both the death and torture curses are done on an individual basis, while the thrall can plant a bomb or something.
In a vacuum, none of them are "evil" spells. If someone is trying to kill or seriously harm me, the ability to kill them, inflict enough pain so they can't harm me, or simply change their mind so they don't want to harm me are morally justifiable.
I generally say murder is the worst because no matter how many horrible experiences you live through, you're still alive and there's a chance for recovery. But the mind-control spell, at least from what I know, doesn't rely on any sort of "Fugue" type of mind-set: you're just doing what your told to do and can experience the horror first-hand. That kind of crushing guilt would likely destroy most people, but that isn't a guarantee as some people don't have much of a moral compass or can grab hold of the disconnect that "it wasn't really me doing that."
Without a set scenario, it's hard to judge what's worse. I will say that the wiki claims the Crucio spell requires a person who has a strong desire to inflict pain, not just stopping someone, in order to use effectively. So, to be good at it, you really need to be a sociopath. Neither of the other curses require that from what I know. Since, the entire point of the spell seems to require you to be an evil bastard to use it "right," I'd have to move it up the ladder.
If you cast the Imperius curse on someone, you can then force your victim to cast the Killing Curse or the Crucio on someone else, making it far worse. Imagine having a mind control device that you can use to commit murder BY ANOTHER'S HAND, e.g., to get rid of John, use mind control on John's wife so she'll murder John and then take the fall for you. That's what the Imperius curse can do.
Those gun nuts do not understand the meaning of "overkill," and will simply use weapon after weapon of mass destruction (WMD) until the monster is dead, or until they run out of weapons.
They have more WMD than there are monsters for us to fight. (More insanity here.)
Those gun nuts do not understand the meaning of "overkill," and will simply use weapon after weapon of mass destruction (WMD) until the monster is dead, or until they run out of weapons.
They have more WMD than there are monsters for us to fight. (More insanity here.)
Elheru Aran wrote:This is IIRC so I could well be wrong, but doesn't the Killing Curse scar the soul in-universe, more and more so as you use it more often?
No. Murder does, but there's a clear differentiation between killing and murder.
Sidewinder wrote:If you cast the Imperius curse on someone, you can then force your victim to cast the Killing Curse or the Crucio on someone else, making it far worse. Imagine having a mind control device that you can use to commit murder BY ANOTHER'S HAND, e.g., to get rid of John, use mind control on John's wife so she'll murder John and then take the fall for you. That's what the Imperius curse can do.
Doesn't really pan in the wizard world what with all the mind-reading spells and how little they care for privacy rights. Doesn't make sense in some contexts, but Dumbledoore had a birdbath full of other people's memories and could even identify which ones where false.
EDIT: unless we're taking these three spells alone. In that case, the ability to mind-control people has so much more potential for abuse than a magical version of a handgun or concealable torture device.
Elheru Aran wrote:This is IIRC so I could well be wrong, but doesn't the Killing Curse scar the soul in-universe, more and more so as you use it more often?
No. Murder does, but there's a clear differentiation between killing and murder.
So what about using the Killing Curse to commit murder?
Elheru Aran wrote:So what about using the Killing Curse to commit murder?
Indeed, but it's the act that does the damage, not the tool that's used. Hitting someone with an AK in the middle of a battle, or using it with the intent of relieving the suffering of a terminally ill individual wouldn't have the damaging effects on the caster. Likewise, murdering someone using some other spell would do just as much damage to the soul as using the Avada.
Seems like a bit of sophistry, but OK. It strikes me as strange that the Avada would be 'Unforgivable' but using another spell to kill a person (say the Sectumsepra) isn't.
I'd have to say the Killing Curse. The others certainly have deplorable effects and can cause lasting or even permanent damage, but death is permanent (well, more or less since this is Harry Potter we're talking about) and almost invariably the result of being hit by a killing curse and murder has a clear negative metaphysical/spiritual effect in Harry Potter. Also, the Killing Curse is the only one specified as being unblockable by magic (other than the self-sacrifice method anyway), which makes it more dangerous.
The killing curse can only kill upon the target. The cruciatus curse can only inflict pain upon the target. Horrible, but that's all they can do.
The imperius curse can make the target kill or torture himself. Or it can make him kill and torture others. Or make the target hurt himself/others in ways the other curses can not. For example, making the target remove limbs from himself and/or others. The potential for evil is far greater with mind control than it is with straight killing or straight pain.
Yeah I'm going with the Imperius being the worst. Simply due to the potential for abuse. Worse, it apparently leaves no visible effect, either when cast or on the victim. Crucio and Avada are very distinctive, it's hard to use them discretely. But Imperio? Well, Harry managed silently and undetected on a goblin, and he was only 17 at the time.
Silent, invisible total mental domination. That's pants-shitting scary.
In a related vein, outside of those three curses I think Obliviate (the memory charm) is utterly obscene, but apparently it's so routine it's not even a curse. For that matter, why don't people use that in combat? Makes your opponent forget what they're doing, very effective alternative to killing I would think.
Baltar: "I don't want to miss a moment of the last Battlestar's destruction!"
Centurion: "Sir, I really think you should look at the other Battlestar."
Baltar: "What are you babbling about other...it's impossible!"
Centurion: "No. It is a Battlestar."
Corrax Entry 7:17: So you walk eternally through the shadow realms, standing against evil where all others falter. May your thirst for retribution never quench, may the blood on your sword never dry, and may we never need you again.
Starglider wrote:Do you mean in an individual ethical sense or in the practical sense of what can do the most damage to society?
Mostly I was thinking in terms of morality.
Zor
HAIL ZOR!WE'LL BLOW UP THE OCEAN!
Heros of Cybertron-HAB-Keeper of the Vicious pit of Allosauruses-King Leighton-I, United Kingdom of Zoria: SD.net World/Tsar Mikhail-I of the Red Tsardom: SD.net Kingdoms WHEN ALL HELL BREAKS LOOSE ON EARTH, ALL EARTH BREAKS LOOSE ON HELL Terran Sphere The Art of Zor
bilateralrope wrote:The killing curse can only kill upon the target. The cruciatus curse can only inflict pain upon the target. Horrible, but that's all they can do.
The imperius curse can make the target kill or torture himself. Or it can make him kill and torture others. Or make the target hurt himself/others in ways the other curses can not. For example, making the target remove limbs from himself and/or others. The potential for evil is far greater with mind control than it is with straight killing or straight pain.
I don't think I had considered using the Imperius Curse to force someone else to kill before saying that the killing curse is the worst. However, it still isn't inherently lethal the way the killing curse is.
And while I would still say the killing curse is probably the most evil and dangerous on an individual level, the Imperious curse is by far the most difficult to deal with socially/legally/politically. It makes it harder to know who is guilty and it makes it easier to infiltrate governments (as Voldemort and the Death Eaters so amply demonstrated at the start of Deathly Hallows).
IIRC there are lasting effects from being the target of an Imperius curse (when it's effective anyway). But perhaps I'm thinking *long term* rather than just someone cursing you and telling you to go press a button over there, then releasing you after you've mashed it a few hundred times.
I'm not that familiar with Harry Potter. What makes someone using the killing curse different to someone going around with a concealed gun and deciding to use that ?
Both in situations where one is used to murder and situations where they are used in self defence.
Eternal_Freedom wrote:Yeah I'm going with the Imperius being the worst. Simply due to the potential for abuse. Worse, it apparently leaves no visible effect, either when cast or on the victim. Crucio and Avada are very distinctive, it's hard to use them discretely. But Imperio? Well, Harry managed silently and undetected on a goblin, and he was only 17 at the time.
Silent, invisible total mental domination. That's pants-shitting scary.
In a related vein, outside of those three curses I think Obliviate (the memory charm) is utterly obscene, but apparently it's so routine it's not even a curse. For that matter, why don't people use that in combat? Makes your opponent forget what they're doing, very effective alternative to killing I would think.
Obliviate is nasty, but I can see using it being justified in some circumstances. Its widespread, casual use on Muggles, however, is nothing short of an atrocity and other than the use of Dementors, its perhaps the worst sin committed by the Ministry of Magic in the period just before Voldemort's takeover. Problem is, I don't see a way out of it that doesn't cause utter devastation. Can you imagine the chaos that would be caused if the Statute of Secrecy was ever ended?
A gun is an inamimate tool, a spell is... a bit different since the power behind it comes from something within the wizard/witch. But HP is a weird universe anyway. We have proof that souls exist there (see Horcruxes), and can be affected by magic (again, Horcruxes), so it's not a far step to figuring out that souls can be affected by the sort of magic being used by the caster and their mindset. Which raises the interesting question of how this would affect, say, a utter sociopath...
As for the Oblivate charm: The magic world made that bed. They can either attempt to carry on, or come clean. They don't really have any alternative.
Imperio - Has far worse implications and potential uses than the others.
Complete removal of free will of the target to make them do whatever you want is horrific.
Easiest example of this would be Buffy when the Trio go from being comical to instant disgust with the use of mind control to 'rape' a woman who would otherwise have said no. Same goes for Stargate Atlantis Irresistable with Lucius using drugs to turn women into his sex slaves.
bilateralrope wrote:I'm not that familiar with Harry Potter. What makes someone using the killing curse different to someone going around with a concealed gun and deciding to use that ?
Both in situations where one is used to murder and situations where they are used in self defence.
Oh good God, did you just turn this thread into a gun control debate?
The killing curse is different from a gun because it has pretty much a one-hundred percent lethality rate, it does not require a specialized weapon to use (just a wand), and, on the flip side difficulty-wise, it apparently takes a lot of power to use it.
TRR: The Wizarding World would probably be obliterated in short order, since Rowling has stated that in a fight between a wizard with a wand and a muggle with a shotgun, the muggle will win every time.
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"?
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.
Baltar: "I don't want to miss a moment of the last Battlestar's destruction!"
Centurion: "Sir, I really think you should look at the other Battlestar."
Baltar: "What are you babbling about other...it's impossible!"
Centurion: "No. It is a Battlestar."
Corrax Entry 7:17: So you walk eternally through the shadow realms, standing against evil where all others falter. May your thirst for retribution never quench, may the blood on your sword never dry, and may we never need you again.
