|
|
Post by blackroses77 on Jun 18, 2012 21:37:51 GMT -5
I agree the Imperious shouldn't be classed as dark as it is the intention behind the spell that determines if Imperious curse is dark or light. I mean really what's the difference between the Imperious and a love potion. If you drug someone it's not rape and is perfectly acceptable, if you use the Imperious curse to sleep with someone then it is unforgivable...o.O Really! For the AK I don't see how it could have ever been anything but dark and was invented specifically to murder. I mean come on it's the magical world there has to be some potion that can be used to give a person a quick, painless death and if the potion is not readily available put the person in stasis with a spell until the potion can be administered. There is no reason to invent such an insidious spell. The same can be said for the crucio as for AK, again it's the magical world I'm sure a spell could have been invented specifically for the purpose of restarting a heart, no need to invent a torture spell to do it. I agree that the intent behind the spell is what determines if it is good or evil. I have a problem with your rape reference however. Rape is rape, even if the person was drugged or imperiused, and rape is evil. Voldemort is evil. That's the thing, evil people will use any means to do or get what they want. "There is no good and evil, there is only power and those too weak to seek it," Voldemort quote from the movie, but it makes the point. No matter what the original intention behind the spell, it can always be manipulated but people. Hell, back to the real world for a second, a knife was originally intended for food, but murders use them all the time. Maybe wizards in the middle ages were tired of chasing after the chickens. Joke. I think you misunderstood what I was saying, I was using rape as a senario to show how messed up the wizarding world is. Love potions and the Imperious can both be used to achieve the same ends (in my example get someone to sleep with you who wouldn't if they were in their right mind) and yet only the imperious is considered dark and unforgivable and not the love potion. WHY? What makes the imperious unforgivable when it is the intent behind the spell and not the spell itself that is dark. I don't know if I'm explaining this right but my thinking was this: Two people on trial for rape, one used imperious the other a love potion the one using imperious is sent to prison the one using a love potion let go. Which is what would happen in the wizarding world, which makes the wizarding world stupid. And this all leads back to, the Imperious should not be considered dark let alone unforgivable when it can be used for good. Personally I think love potions should be considered unforgivable they can't be used for anything good or neutral therefore they are not light, they can only be used for evil therefore they are dark. Seriously messed up wizarding world. |
|
|
|
Post by overcastcrystal17 on Jun 18, 2012 21:51:03 GMT -5
I agree that the intent behind the spell is what determines if it is good or evil. I have a problem with your rape reference however. Rape is rape, even if the person was drugged or imperiused, and rape is evil. Voldemort is evil. That's the thing, evil people will use any means to do or get what they want. "There is no good and evil, there is only power and those too weak to seek it," Voldemort quote from the movie, but it makes the point. No matter what the original intention behind the spell, it can always be manipulated but people. Hell, back to the real world for a second, a knife was originally intended for food, but murders use them all the time. Maybe wizards in the middle ages were tired of chasing after the chickens. Joke. I think you misunderstood what I was saying, I was using rape as a scenario to show how messed up the wizarding world is. Love potions and the Imperious can both be used to achieve the same ends (in my example get someone to sleep with you who wouldn't if they were in their right mind) and yet only the imperious is considered dark and unforgivable and not the love potion. WHY? What makes the imperious unforgivable when it is the intent behind the spell and not the spell itself that is dark. I don't know if I'm explaining this right but my thinking was this: Two people on trial for rape, one used imperious the other a love potion the one using imperious is sent to prison the one using a love potion let go. Which is what would happen in the wizarding world, which makes the wizarding world stupid. And this all leads back to, the Imperious should not be considered dark let alone unforgivable when it can be used for good. Personally I think love potions should be considered unforgivable they can't be used for anything good or neutral therefore they are not light, they can only be used for evil therefore they are dark. Seriously messed up wizarding world. I get what your saying, and that is a good point. In your scenario, in my opinion though, they both should have been tried. In fact, I agree that love potions should be considered unforgivable , and I think they are worse than imperious. Yes, Imperious can be manipulated for bad, like everything, but most of the time a love potion is used for personal gain and slavery, in my opinion. if someone is using a love potion, they are magically making them love you, making you do things against your will because you love them, but you really don't. Love is sacred, and should not be mettled with. I love Fred and George, but they shouldn't have fueled the fire. Imperious can be used for good though, if you think about it. |
|
|
|
Post by overcastcrystal17 on Jun 18, 2012 21:52:35 GMT -5
 Oh good... because I thought it was a bit wrong to want to strangle him with my bear hands! Joke. But I cannot tell you how many times I have wanted to punch him, or Crucio him, give him a taste of his won medicine, Mwa Ha! Beside the point though, anything can be twisted by evil means, and there is dark and light in objects and spells, just like in people. The world is filled with all shades of grey, it's up to the user to determine if it is black or white. Um ... you have seen all these "Let's kill Umbitch/Voldy/Lucius" ideas, right? So why should you feel bad for feeling like you do? We all were rather eager to think up ways to torture and/or kill them, after all. It was a joke. |
|
|
|
Post by overcastcrystal17 on Jun 20, 2012 21:33:22 GMT -5
The Imperious curse is the power of suggestion.
|
|
|
|
Post by viralic1 on Jun 21, 2012 20:39:58 GMT -5
I've wondered this about the Cruciatus, but what's the time limit on it before someone goes mad? I always had the impression it was for a couple of minutes, maybe ten at the most if you have a strong mind. Some fanfics however have people going like 45 minutes of straight cruciatus exposure before going mad.
|
|
|
|
Post by G. Novella on Jun 21, 2012 20:43:27 GMT -5
I think it depends on the caster's level to cause pain as well. Bellatrix was hardly affected when Harry cast the Cruciatus, but she tortured two strong Aurors to madness. So I think a variety of factors must play into the time limit to go mad.
|
|
sherza
Head Boy/Girl
Posts: 705
|
Post by sherza on Jun 21, 2012 20:46:42 GMT -5
Not very long, I wouldn't think. Anyone that thinks someone can go 45 minutes or more without going mad or stroking out it completely nuts.
From everything we've been told, the Cruciatus is more or less an 11 on a 1-10 pain scale ... all over your body. I don't know about anybody else, but a 7 or 8 on the pain scale leaves me a wreck after about five minutes ... and I have a high pain tolerance!
So yeah ... not long. It'd definitely vary from person to person, though. Pain tolerance, mental strength and sheer bullheadedness would all factor into it. As would overal physical fitness. If you've already got a health condition (especially anything to do with the cardiovascular system) you're not going to last as long as someone who's healthy. That level of pain makes the heart race, and if you've got heart or artery problems, you're going to stroke out, have a heart attack, or burst a blood vessel a LOT faster than someone else.
|
|
|
|
Post by viralic1 on Jun 21, 2012 21:08:15 GMT -5
That was my thoughts exactly, but the stories I've read have people like Peter Pettigrew having the Cruciatus cast on them by Voldemort when he's extremely angry, and having it held for "approximately 30 minutes" were the exact words, and then he just gets up, bows, and walks away.
Also, is anyone else annoyed when someone is able to 'beat' the Cruciatus? Like when Harry is able to ignore the pain and fight back. I figure that if a fourteen year old kid with no training can beat the Cruciatus cast by Bella or Moldy, then two extremely strong aurors like Frank and Alice Longbottom would have had no problem beating it and retaliating against their attackers.
|
|
sherza
Head Boy/Girl
Posts: 705
|
Post by sherza on Jun 21, 2012 21:17:53 GMT -5
Beating it ... annoying as hell, yes. Being able to still get (one) hit in despite being in agony? Not *entirely* out there ... people have done odder things when their adrenaline's going.
Also, the situation the people are in affect things. Getting Crucio'd in the midst of a fight is one thing ... being tortured for information you don't have is something completely different. For all we know, Frank and/or Alice DID temporarily fight the effects off, but got dragged under again. Bellatrix is certainly vicious enough to redouble her efforts if that happened, and from what we've seen, the others involved in the Longbottoms' torture were no better.
And just bowing and walking off after a half hour? What complete nutter wrote THAT?
|
|
|
|
Post by viralic1 on Jun 21, 2012 21:25:24 GMT -5
It's in like half the stories I read nowadays. I'm making sure that in my story, the Cruciatus isn't as weak as people are making it seem.
|
|
sherza
Head Boy/Girl
Posts: 705
|
Post by sherza on Jun 21, 2012 22:07:38 GMT -5
Oy. That's just ... dumb as heck.
Yah. I'd imagine even a very short bout of Crucio would leave you feeling a bit on the trembly side, if not outright and actually trembling (like shaky hands or something like that), and it'd just get worse from there. More'n about thirty or forty seconds or so, and you're going to be flopping around on the floor like a landed fish, either that or curled into a defensive ball. And probably be a wee bit twitchy about being touched for a while after you relax, too ... random nerves still firing off and all that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kitty279 on Jun 22, 2012 0:36:37 GMT -5
What? 45 minutes? That's crazy! There would have to be at least long breaks in between, but even so it is too excessive.
I am sure Harry with his high pain tolerance and immense willpower, for instance, would be able to withstand that much longer than, say, Draco, who has never in his live had to deal with anything - that's what his Daddy is for, after all. And I have to agree: a healthy young person would probably last longer as someone old and/or ill, yes. Someone like Bellatrix would cause more damage as Pettigrew, too.
|
|
|
|
Post by sprigofmoonlace on Jun 23, 2012 13:07:02 GMT -5
Personally I agree with the people who said that they may have originally been created for good. I think one comment said that you had to truly hate the person to cast it. Truthfully I thought it was only if you truly wanted to cast it. Like with the killing curse, only if you wanted that person to die would it work, like putting a dying person out of their misery. Because if it was that way, they may of been created overall for good. Not sure about the Cruciatus Curse though, I think it was intended for a torture curse. Seems a bit too much pain for only restarting a heart.  |
|
|
|
Post by Miss Wings on Jun 23, 2012 13:09:39 GMT -5
yeah but if the machines didn't work you could try it as a last resort.. could work.. especially if you can control the power levels.. a little shock and not overkill..
|
|
|
|
Post by Ithiarel on Jun 23, 2012 13:11:07 GMT -5
Not sure about the Cruciatus Curse though, I think it was intended for a torture curse. Seems a bit too much pain for only restarting a heart. And let's not forget that torture was a widely accepted interrogation device in the past. Imagine how much money you could have saved if you didn't needed to hire up a professional torturer anymore, because you could do the work yourself without fearing to accidentally killing the victim before they spilled their guts...  |
|
|
|
Post by kumainpink on Jun 23, 2012 13:46:18 GMT -5
I completely agree, ithiarel. |
|
|
|
Post by lucyolsen on Jun 23, 2012 14:27:22 GMT -5
I was under the impression that hate didn't necessarily have much to do with it, but that you need to want to cause pain. Maybe there is some correlation between hate and sadism, but Harry can hate all he wants, but as long as he doesn't want to cause pain for the sake of causing pain, he's not going to be that good it.
But it explains so much about Bellatrix.
|
|
|
|
Post by chikina on Jul 5, 2012 9:14:21 GMT -5
According to harrypotter.wikia.com/wiki/Unforgivable_Curses all of them were created during the early middle ages. Cruciatus is clearly the worst one, it was created for torture purposes. You have to want to inflict the pain (and probably enjoy it) upon a victim. And about Harry using successfully Unforgivables? Bad-ass. He has a frightening talent for dark spells have you noticed? |
|
|
|
Post by overcastcrystal17 on Jul 5, 2012 19:13:04 GMT -5
Yes he does, but he also had good reason to use them, even if only for revenge. At least he knows not to use them on good people
|
|
|
|
Post by kumainpink on Jul 5, 2012 19:16:13 GMT -5
I agree with that. Besides, nobody is perfect, and I wouldn't enjoy reading about a saintly Harry. He's a teenage boy with plenty of faults. I enjoy his character as a whole, even when he makes mistakes or treads on the "dark side" a little bit.
|
|
|
|
Post by overcastcrystal17 on Jul 5, 2012 19:26:33 GMT -5
God, saintly Harry would be annoying, he would never do what you want him to do, like kick Moldywort's ass.
|
|
|
|
Post by kumainpink on Jul 5, 2012 19:27:35 GMT -5
And "pure" people are so boring...I have to have imperfection, you know? :3
|
|
|
|
Post by overcastcrystal17 on Jul 5, 2012 19:38:20 GMT -5
Yeah, because nobody's perfect, it's part of being a human being, to have flaws. Perfect people don't actually exist, so perfect characters are so unbelievable to the point that they're unrelatable and annoying. The reason Harry Potter is so successful is because it shows us a world of magic that we can escape into, but with characters that have flaws like real people. We read and we come to love these characters, despite of their flaws, just like we do with the real people in our lives. Perfection is not necessarily possible, perfection is the authentithisis of authenticity. All people, like gems, have flaws, and so do the characters in this book.
|
|
|
|
Post by teflonbilly on Jul 22, 2012 3:51:20 GMT -5
Harry's "talent" for dark spells could also be chalked up to having a part of Voldemorts corrupt soul within him.
On the thread topic.
The whole concept of only three solely unforgivable spells comes off as ridiculous. I personally, in my own head canon, class this as a Wizarding Britain only thing.
I think there'd be whole classes of spells, charms, potions, enchantments that should be "unforgivable" especially in a world where intent based magic is so prominent (patronus, crutiatus, etc...)
Such as summoning demons, curses that afflict entire bloodlines (future generations), incurable lethal and painful disease spells, etc...
Hell, Fenrir Greyback's hobby of inflicting lycanthropy upon children is pretty unforgivable of a magical act IMO.
TB
|
|
|
|
Post by Kitty279 on Jul 22, 2012 4:05:09 GMT -5
Either make more spells unforgivable, or judge by purpose. As was pointed out before, Imperius could be used to save lives as well. Wingardium Leviosa is a first year spell, but what if you use it to levitate someone over the wall of a tower and then drop him? Would that be alright just because that was a light spell, while the Imperius who was saving people is still dark? The intent should be taken into consideration a bit more.
As for Greyback - it's hard to understand why they on the one hand persecute werewolves, but don't imprison these like him. Was the Ministry never willing to catch him, or too incompetent? People, no, beasts like him should be taken out for good.
|
|
|
|
Post by teflonbilly on Jul 22, 2012 4:23:51 GMT -5
Either make more spells unforgivable, or judge by purpose. As was pointed out before, Imperius could be used to save lives as well. Wingardium Leviosa is a first year spell, but what if you use it to levitate someone over the wall of a tower and then drop him? Would that be alright just because that was a light spell, while the Imperius who was saving people is still dark? The intent should be taken into consideration a bit more. As for Greyback - it's hard to understand why they on the one hand persecute werewolves, but don't imprison these like him. Was the Ministry never willing to catch him, or too incompetent? People, no, beasts like him should be taken out for good. Exactly. Also, watch any Hellraiser movie, or anything involving Lovecraftian terrors and you've got perfect examples of spells that HP universe wizards could come up with. A little bit of Oppugno style attacking curses cast on kitchen knives, chains, broken glass and you could strip the flesh from someone's bones in seconds, couple it with a "stay conscious until heart stops" spell and you can truly dig into nightmare fuel levels of terror. The idea of a pain inflicting spell, and an instant death (with no pain I might add) comes off as weak sauce as far as the only three "unforgivable" spells. Although, I'm fallowing an interesting Peggy Sue fic where Ron was forced to beat Ginny to death while under the Imperious. The terror and helplessness that was described in that fic does give a good justification for the visceral reason that the Imperious Curse is classified as unforgivable. Have enough dark wizards use it to make people murder their loved ones, and it'd get classified that way pretty quick. Especially when you add in the likely suicides that'd follow the curse being lifted. TB |
|
|
|
Post by Kitty279 on Jul 22, 2012 4:39:16 GMT -5
Yeah, I can see why it would be outlawed, it can be abused so horrible. It could just be discussed if there are exceptions to the rule. Wouldn't it be interesting what the screwed wizarding justice system would make of murder by a light spell vs. saving lives by an Unforgivable?
You're right about the suicides, of course, who could live with himself after such an experience?
|
|
|
|
Post by werewulfking on Jul 26, 2012 5:52:21 GMT -5
I always thought that the unforgivables were named such for a reason. Because just because somebody could use the imperious for a good reason like Harry did, doesn't mean that he doesn't have to have a special mindset that enables him to use the Imperious. He must have wanted to completely control a person and take away his free will.
And I just think even if somebody knows it is for their own good it would be a pretty awful feeling to have bee at the mercy of somebody.
It seems to me that you could never really trust a person again who used that against you because you always know how they could be used again.
|
|
|
|
Post by thepurplepen on Jul 29, 2012 19:59:21 GMT -5
Like most people here, I believe it's intent that makes a spell work, but you have to want the spell to do what it is supposed to do.
In the case of the Imperious, you have to want to control someone utterly. In DH, Harry didn't want to completely dominate Travers, so when he cast the spell in Gringotts it wasn't very good or effective - he had to keep casting it. Imperio could be used to stop someone committing suicide in theory, but, by my logic, you have to want to 'control someone utterly' to do it properly. Wanting to help someone just wouldn't cut it, and that has a much darker undertone to it.
The same with the Cruciatus, you have to want to cause someone unbearable agony, wanting to restart someone's heart with it wouldn't have nearly the same effect, I don't think. Also I very much doubt there isn't a spell to restart someones heart using less painful means.
As for using the AK to kill sick and dying people, there may not have been a potion to cause instantaneous death, but the Draught of Living Death, is used to put someone in an irreversible sleep, afterwards you could use another option to end their life.
I don't believe that these are the only unforgivable spells, I just think that these three are grouped together and the title "The Unforgivables" was given to them.
|
|
|
|
Post by sn0rkack on Jul 29, 2012 20:52:47 GMT -5
I look at it like this. Three curses with three major outcomes: torture, death and control. Pretty clear cut, but not really when you look at it. When it comes down to it, I think the worst is the cruciatus followed by imperius and lastly AK.
Ahem.
There are several spells that kill and make...messes, yeah? Sectumsempra, for one, or that spell Dolohov used on Hermione. Now, evil bad guy wants you to die, you think he's gonna use a quick and easy way or draw it out removing limb from limb? I'd say the latter.
So, which spell is the good side more likely to use, the killing curse (painless and 'clean') or a cutting curse that slashes the victim to pieces and may not even kill them at first glance?
The killing curse is used by the baddies nowadays because it is a simple way of removing a target but just think about it. Someone wants you dead, they want you to suffer. There aren't that many spells shown combat-wise in the HP universe like their are in fanon or I at least like to think are but I'm positive there are many ways to kill someone without use of the killing curse. Perhaps a levitation charm gone wrong, maybe even a poorly aimed cutting charm.
The killing curse kills, but there was killing before it and killing after without it. I think the killing curse was made to either end lives peacefully or to end lives of livestock and such without ruining the carcass. People nowadays do some crazy stuff when killing animals as to not ruin furs and such. Don't they bash polar bears heads in instead of shooting them as to not get blood on the fur?
Now, there are plenty of ways to torture someone, yet the worse way (best way, too) to do it magically is with the cruciatus. No marks, no mess, only pain. Quick and efficient torturing.
Maybe it was made with the intention of extracting information on the spot with no need for all the extras, or maybe it had medical use some time, but torture is torture.
Then there is the imperius...Maybe it was once used in situations with muggles to avoid detection when something needed to get done (like a hostage situation or w/e). I don't know. Control is control just like torture is torture, but is control over a bad guy about to do bad things really that bad? Someone is gonna jump off a building and they suddenly lose control of their body, is it really that bad?
Maybe all three were created for use on animals or the farm? Here, take a look at this idea.
Jim has just got a new dog and is attempting to train it with the help of his older dog.
"Sit down, dog." Dog does not sit down. Points wand at old dog. "Imperio." Dog sits. "See, doggy? Like that." New dog does not sit down. "Bad dog. Crucio." New dog sits down. "Good boy." Points wand at old dog. "Avada Kedavra." Looks at new dog. "And that is so you don't forget it."
Like I said before: torture is just that, but killing and control have different means. Killing can be a mercy and control can be a savior.
|
|
Oh good... because I thought it was a bit wrong to want to strangle him with my bear hands! Joke. But I cannot tell you how many times I have wanted to punch him, or Crucio him, give him a taste of his won medicine, Mwa Ha! Beside the point though, anything can be twisted by evil means, and there is dark and light in objects and spells, just like in people. The world is filled with all shades of grey, it's up to the user to determine if it is black or white.
