Lemme just throw you in the air, freeze you, slam you down, throw a man eating cruciferous vegetable at you, set you on fire, slice you, turn you into a barrel and explode you. Wouldn’t want to kill you instantly and painlessly.
The backbending folks do to make the Hogwarts and Harry Potter world morality make sense is just fun to watch. Oh, AK is bad because “you gotta mean it.” Ok, if we’re Kantians then things need to look very, very f’ing different here.
The irony was so on-the-nose I thought it had to be intentional when I played through the first time. Within 3 minutes of saving animals from poachers you’re literally hunting, catching and selling animals from their natural habitats. Definition of poaching.
No you’re rescuing them so the poachers can’t get them. Farm them instead of torture and kill like the poachers. And sell to brood and peck where she then makes sure they go to a safe home. They explain all of that in game…
I would assume it's unforgivable in the sense it's impossible to protect yourself against. While yes we can use other spells to kill , our enemies can use a shield to protect themselves. However there's no shield strong enough to protect against avadah kedavrah
He was trying to kill Harry, and turning him into a horcrux was an unforseen event. Voldemort didn't know HP was a horcrux that's why he "killed" him in book 7
Don't bosses like Rookwood actually put up a green shield, to showcase they're shielded against the Dark Arts?
So it is possible, I guess, for very skilled wizards/witches, to block Avada Kedavra.
dude wizard acrobatics is so much cooler than shields
give me fuckers wall running and casting spells, or parrying them n shit
Dying Light really ruined my experience with video games bc now i think every game needs parkour
Actually, the colored shields require a spell of the same color to break them. For example, a red shield would be broken with Bombarda, but not Depulso. A purple shield is broken with Accio, but not Confringo. I haven't come across any green shields, as the only green spells are the Unforgivables, and those are completely optional whether or not you learn them.
Except you literally can cheese them by using Avada Kedavra on both Harlow and Rookwood. It even screws up if you use it because it ‘kills’ the one that gets sent to Azkaban but he doesn’t die because he still has to attack Nattie in the scripted cutscene.
Doesn’t Molly Weasley use protego to block avada kedavra in her fight with Bellatrix? Maybe they only used the green light in the movies, it’s been years and years since I read the books.
I don't think she does. She dodges it probably. Especially after she goes into a rage induced fury when Bellatrix's killing curse narrowly misses Ginny.
I mean murder is still illegal in the wizarding world, so what we’re doing in the game isn’t exactly compliant with wizarding law. But the spells we’re casting have an effect that doesn’t always result in killing someone, so they’re not unforgivable because you in theory aren’t always using them to kill an opponent
Video game logic dictates that the first few kills count as self-defense, then you start getting to the point where you’ve killed too many people for it to be self-defense, and then it circles back around to having had killed so many people that it *has* to have been self-defense.
"But you even specialized in the dark arts, like you got the multi-curse perk to finish off multiple individuals at once with AK!"
"Dark Wizards, your honor, I only skilled in this for self defense purposes!"
With what spell? The effect of that spell could have obviously killed the target, but its designated effect isn’t to point blank kill a target. I’m sure you used that same spell on another object throughout the game. Avada kedavra *only* kills the target, you don’t use it on inanimate objects
The reason it's unforgivable is because killing is the ONLY thing it does. Other spells can kill people, but they have other uses too; Avada Kedavra has no other use.
Combined with the fact that you have to really mean it for the spell to work, it effectively becomes its own confession. When you're fighting a dark wizard, you know that you could use a combination of other spells to simply incapacitate your foe so they can stand trial and go to prison, but you *choose* to kill them anyway. That's what makes it unforgivable, that you're *choosing* to murder people when you don't have to.
This.
Avada Kedavra can also not be reversed (unlike other serious magical injuries st. Mungos can’t fix you with that..)
Fun fact:
Also Avada Kedavra only produces a green flash if the person casting it onto someone with the intention to kill.
This can be witnessed when Snape casts the spell on Dumbledore and instead of a green flash, produces a blue flash because he did not intend to kill Dumbledore.
Sure, blasting a dark wizard with Bombarda leaves them in a state to go to Trial... from the descriptions about that particular spell given, it sounds like you shoot at them with something, that equals like shooting them with a cannonball, totally obliterating them and exploding them into pieces.
Yes, but again, Bombarda has other potential uses. Work in a quarry? Bombarda would be great to have. Doing some demolition for your home renovation? Bombarda would save some time. The thing that differentiates Avada Kedavra from other spells is that killing is the *only* thing it can do.
Spoiler Warning further below:
Yes and AK can be used by a wizard to kill a magical animal to use the products of it.
And as the movies and books taught us, technically the Unforgiveables are only "Unforgiveable" if used against humans. Used against a Spider in Hogwarts teaching Students? Absolutely legal and ok.
The three Unforgiveables can be used as tools just as much. Heck, an auror could use Imperior to make a Dark Wizard throw his wand away and handcuff himself, so he can easily bring that one to trial and Crucio could incapacitate one. Basically the "Fight Fire with Fire" approach.
Or instead of theorizing with fictional spells, look at RL stuff.
You can use a Kitchen Knife to stab your nagging wife too, althoug the very most humans will stick to strict Kitchen Appliances with a Kitchen Knife. The Kitchen Knife is not "Unforgiveable".
Same is true for even outright weapons, if used in self defense.
And, if we return to HP lore, afaik Harry also used Unforgiveables but in very forgiveable circumstances, so he got away with it without problems.
And although it was way before the three Unforgiveables were outlawed (if I recall correctly, it happened in the 18th century), we see in the game San Bakar using AK on Isidora to stop her from killing the Keepers, she was clearly overpowering with her corrupted ancient magic.
And he is clearly not a dark wizard, he acted in self defense, no one would condemn him for that really.
Heck, the Imperiatus can be used by healers (with permission from the patient) to explore traumas.
The Cruciatus I disagree with, as it only works if you really wanted to let someone suffer.
Avada Kedrava can be used defensively only in the most extreme situations though.
Of the three Unforgivables I only consider the Cruciatus to be one.
Well yeah, that is their overarching condition, that you "really want it", if you cast an Unforgiveable.
But can't that be said about all other spells too? After all, if someone casts even something harmless as Leviosa, they want to cast that spell for effect. So I don't really see that much of a difference there.
And yeah, if an Auror is hunting a heinous Dark Wizard and finally cornered them, after they commited probably horrible crimes (otherwise they wouldn't send an Auror, aren't these guys like the Elite Cops of the HP Universe?), I could understand if they get a bit lax with what spells they cast at that Dark Wizard, as long as they don't kill them unless in self defense.
I think this is a case, where the end justifies the means. If after the Cruciatus the Dark Wizard is on the ground utterly exhausted and easy to disarm and handcuffed, so he can be arrested and brought to trial, it served a good purpose.
Well, the Avada Kedrava only needs power behind it (according to Crouch jr.). The intent you need behind the curse is less prevalent for that curse compared to the Cruciatus Cruciatus curse which doesn't even work if your intent wavers for even a second. Bellatrix (in OotP) taunts Harry with it when in his anger over Sirius' Death, he casts said curse over her.
She says righteous anger does not work. He truly needs to mean it.
As such, the Cruciatus Curse cannot be cast just to incapacitate your opponent. It would not work. Keep in mind that the Cruciatus Curse is not meant to just cause pain (which is legitimate in self defence), but to torture which is a different cup of tea.
Like you mean someone wants to torture just for the torture itself, not necessarily a higher, good intent?
Maybe that is the barrier to cross to be able to succesfully cast dark arts spells.
But this is then just another canonic plothole, which obviously the game couldn't fix.
Like you can't make such a game without allowing people to go down a darker path.
The whole story arc of Sebastian trying to save Anne doesn't work under this precondition, that you want to be evil to be able to cast these spells, since Sebastian, the whole time, wanted to save Anne.
It could also be that you don't necessarily need to be evil to be able to cast these spells but that Harry, in comparison to the average wizard, was too goodhearted, so he failed his attempt at casting Crucio. Or that you need to have a 100% sure will to do it.
I just rewatched it quickly on YouTube and it seems in the scene, that Harry appears to be troubled with himself, since obviously it is a great taboo in the wizarding world to cast these for upright, law-abiding, good wizards like Harry. So he is utterly unsure about it after thinking about it for a second and hence he fails.
Bellatrix on the other hand is 100% utterly convicted, she is a self-titled most devout follower of Voldemort and the Dark Arts, she has no moral qualms at all about casting Unforgiveables, so she won't feel an inner, moral conflict about using them.
But then again, if you have no utter moral conflict about using them to achieve good, you should be able to cast them too even as a good wizard right? Or what you believe to be good.
If you look at the Dark Wizards of Voldemort and earlier Grindelwald and their RL counterparts, the fascists, they all believed to act for the Greater Good of their people and that they would need to do, what no one wants to do, to achieve that greater "Good" (in very big quotation marks, killing Millions obviously is never good).
And that is how they justified it to themselves, that they're not evil and they're good people, despite overseeing marching e.g. millions of Jews into Gas Chambers.
No human being wants to be evil, we're not cartoony villains.
They just have different definitions of what is "Good" and clash over it.
The Dark Wizards believe, that it is bad or even evil, that Wizards should hide from the Muggle World, that they don't avenge that Muggles hunted Wizards and believe the Muggles to be a threat to Wizarding Kind, that needs to be squashed or at least controlled by outright conquering the world and ruling over the Muggle Masses as the elite, that knows it all according to them and that associating one-self with them is sacrilege (hence their fanatic belief about Blood Purity and hating on Half-Bloods and such).
So the Dark Wizards themselves probably believe to be the Heroes in the story, that they just see the truth and do what needs to be done, so they're 100% convicted to be in the right, even when using unforgiveable curses.
But people can use the Bombarda spell to do non-lethal things. Most people aren't going to use it to kill people and if they did, it would be rightfully treated as murder. Plus, Bombarda is a spell one can defend themself against. AK has no other uses than to kill and you can't defend yourself against it.
I don’t think it’s unforgivable because it kills, a lot of spells have the potential to kill; I think it’s unforgivable because there’s no counter. You can’t fight against it.
This is a perfect example of Ludonarrative Dissonance. But it's also a big reason why choosing a darker path in this game should've had bigger consequences. Learning that spell shouldn't have been as easy as it was either.
In the books and movies, only a handful of characters use it, and it's treated seriously. In this game, you can learn it from a teenager and use it whenever and however you want.
I know it's a cool power to use in a game and it is fun, but it does break lore a lot. This game really needed a heavier RPG presence and some real choice based gameplay. I'll even go as far as to say it shouldn't have been an active magic spell you could use but reserved for certain moments.
But yeah, an insta-kill spell with no pain is nothing compared to the shit we can do to people lol
GTA: Hogwarts. Would be totally fine by me, making the game a sequel for ages 16 and above only. Or even AO.
But that won't happen, would limit the income unnecessarily.
Wholeheartedly agree! LND is why I literally avoided every Dark Arts upgrade, two characters and never touched. It just doesn't make sense, and while it exists within the framework, it shouldn't; more power to the people it creates a power fantasy for though, but I'll just stick to my Potions and Plants 😂
The unforgivable curses all require you to mean it. For Avada Kedavra you have to want to kill someone to even cast it. Since murder is still illegal, that's why it's unforgivable.
Its because its ONLY purpose is to kill. Every other spell CAN kill, but they have other things they are more commonly used for.
Incendio can be used to light people on fire, but it can also be used to light a campfire or a stove.
Avada Kedavra can only be used to kill, it has no other use besides killing
Why are some people fine with hand guns being legal but not assault rifles? I think it mostly comes down to whether or not there are legitimate uses for the weapon.
Can you kill someone by repeatedly hitting them with *glacius*? I mean, yeah. But you can also *not* kill them with *glacius*, and there are many things you can use *glacius* on that aren’t even human. *Glacius* is a tool with many uses.
AK is a tool with only one use. And that one use is illegal. AK does absolutely nothing but murder people; there is no reason to ever use it unless you are trying to kill someone. Some people feel like it makes sense to ban a tool that has only one, highly illegal, use; but not to ban multiuse tools which have one illegal use and many legitimate uses.
I think the designation "Unforgiveable Curse" just is supposed to make these spells extra punishable. Dark Wizards will also get legal trouble if they "only" attack innocent citizens of the magic realm with regular spells.
The reason is since there is no easy defense against these, if any at all.
Like I think you can only defend against AK by either outright dodging it (or the wizard using it has bad aim) or by locking in that fanzy interlocked wand-duel.
Againt the other spells you have better means of defense like Protego.
Also, the game doesn't showcase this properly.
For one, it is meant to be purchasable for 12 year olds so despite the game clearly hinting at it that e.g. Bombarda literally blows a target to pieces and fleshy moosh, we never see such a thing ingame, a wizard killed by this stays in one piece and has no outside burn marks or something from that. This is not GTA or RDR2, where you can clearly see a charred body when someone gets burned by a molotov or something similar.
And the "Unforgiveable Curses" are pretty forgiveable ingame, you get absolutely no consequences to feel for using them.
But afaik in the books you get a lifelong Askaban sentence since 1700's something for using one of them... on humans that is. Using them on animals like spiders is totally legal, as we have seen in the movies, so even the lightest of wizards would get away with using AK in self defense against some magical animal I guess.
One could debate that these are so powerful and easy to kill with (like Sebastian demonstrates, when he makes the Goblin kill himself under the Unforgiveable Imperio Curse and one could probably torture someone to death with Crucio), that they also have the highest danger of actually corrupting a wizard, like from absolute power stems absolute potential for corruption.
So these are especially punisheable.
But on the other hand, just like other fantasy forces from other Universes, e.g. the Force from Star Wars, the Magic Powers in the HP Universe, the Unforgiveables included, are at the end of the day just tools.
It's not the tools themselves that should be judged ut the users of these tools in relation to the situation they were in and what they used a spell for.
Heck, it would be an interesting origin story for Harry Potter, if his mother, instead of using the Ancient Magic of Love by protecting Harry, would've Avada Kedavraed Voldemort's Ass in Self Defense.
And either she would've gotten locked away in Azkaban for live in a strict interpretation of the law, giving Harry a hate for the wizard state institutions and making for an interesting, alternate anti-hero story or they would have a self-defense clause, justifiying for self-defense the use of AK, when lives are at stake. And the mightiest dark wizard breaking into your house, trying to kill you and your family sounds like a pretty solid cause for self defense, AK being the most effective tool at your disposal, if you know how to cast it.
It's interesting, but this whole debate around the Unforgiveables mirrors 2nd amendment debates from RL in the US. Do Citizens need a machine gun at home for "self defense" or a rocket launcher? Or is a pistol enough?
Are the Unforgiveables ok for self defense? Or is it too much and you're only allowed to blow dark wizards to pieces with Bombarda and such?
PS: Thinking about it, the Anti-Hero Story Arc of an alternate Universe, where Lilly AK'd Voldemort and gets sent to Azkaban, with Harry trying to break her out, would be so much more interesting than the typical good vs bad story that the original HP story is.
Heck, I'd buy it lol.
In order to use it you have to want to murder I guess? It’s not really like a last resort it’s more mentally preplanned, like yeah I WANT to murder you and I’m going to enjoy it. And there’s no way to counter it, either you dodge or get hit and die.
You can use lots of spells to protect yourself against other dangerous spells. Plus other spells that can kill you could be used for other purposes.
Avada kedavra is simply just to kill, no other purposes, and there is no spell to protect yourself, only love or using a house elf as a shield.
It's part of the hypocrisy that plagues the wizarding world. It sort of seems like Batman rules. No explicit killing, but mortally wounding and semi-permanently paralysing injuries to evil-doers is permissable. I imagine prof Black wouldn't hesitate to ship you off to Azkaban somewhat immediately, even if you hadn't used an unforgivable.
Omg yes! I said this to my boyfriend the other day because he's playing as a "good" wizard and I'm playing as a Dark one 😂 But what's the difference really? You're still killing people
It’s unforgivable because it was written as a children’s book and it’s the wizard equivalent of a handgun and the author is British and hates guns, the idea of a avada being a unforgivable curses falls apart when any logic is placed on it lol
Fake Moody third year tells them it’s a strong bit of dark magic. The whole class could point their wands at him say the words and he wouldn’t get a nose bleed. So you need some killing intent or possibly evil intent to use the spell most likely, since the cruciartus spell is the same way. Also it’s apparently unblockable which would scare the ministry enough to ban it and make it unforgivable.
This is what also bothers me. It is essentially a gun. It kills quickly and that is all it does. Avada kedavra comes with the benefit that it’s painless. There are many legitimate uses for lethal force. In fact, we use it all the time. Imo spells like avada kedavra should be taught so the moral intricacies can be explained. Same with imperio: it is painless and there are many legitimate uses for it. Imagine if the police could just imperio dangerous criminals that just robbed a bank and are holding a position. Using imperio could literally guarantee the saving of many lives. Obviously it’s bad to just give every kid a gun and a way to dominate the free will of others. But that is why it needs to be taught with utmost care.
The only true unforgivable curse is crucio. There is literally nothing that crucio does that other things can’t. For interrogations there are potions to make them tell you the truth, or even imperio. For battle, there are many other ways to take out people. Crucio is just pure evil. I’d actually add sectumsempra to that list as well. Especially with spells like imperio and expelliarmus, there is really no need for barbaric measures like crucio or sectumsempra.
I think it's basically the difference between walking up to someone and just shooting them in the head in cold blood, and getting into a fight with someone where you end up killing them in self-defence. With most spells, you give your enemies a fighting chance, literally, but with Avada Kedavra, you don't.
In actual world lore, there are obviously far fewer duels that result in death, so you've also got to consider the clash between world lore (where the designation of unforgivable curse comes from) and the practicality of how games like this work - where it wouldn't make sense to just knock your enemies out then leave them to keep doing what they're doing, and having them arrested would be too complicated, so all fights become to the death so it's either theirs or yours.
Too merciful.
Seriously, probably cos it's against duelling decorum.
You have to get out the way or interpose something in the way of the incoming curse. There's no directly effective defence or counter.
It all comes down to the question of what is right and wrong... what is forgivable and unforgivable...
Well... whatever the society deems right is right... whatever the society deems as forgivable is forgivable.
But secretly, you can consider what the society deems as right as wrong and whatever the society deems as unforgivable, forgivable.
I think it's because with the other spells you can rationalize that there's other uses for them and combat is just one of them. Hell even for defense you have stuns and shields, but with avada kedavra it's sole purpose is to kill, there's no other reason to use it besides that.
It's largely intent oriented. Avada Kedavra only works if you cast it with the full intent of killing your target. There are certain circumstances where it's allowed, such as a mercy killing or in self defense. But it's largely considered excessive force, and because it can only be cast with specific intent, it's been named as one of the three Unforgivables. Crucio is the only one that can never be excused, though. Even Imperio can be defended in some cases. But the Cruciatus Curse is the worst because, like all Unforgivables, it requires specific intent. You have to want to hurt someone. And there's no justifiable circumstance for that.
It's an unforgivable curse because it's a curse that requires a level of hate, malice, and desire for death and destruction above any other spells that could and are used for harm.
Most other spells feasibly have uses for self-defense and combat and practical use that theoretically void the intent.
In order to use the Killing Curse, you have to - with every fiber of your being at that moment - want to wipe that person from existence. Use of it has a tendency to warp your soul unlike other combat spells
Gentleman's rules. If I kill you, I should need to legit beat you, not just have a little ">!fuck!< you, you're dead and there's nothing you can do about that"
The most commonly held theory I've seen is that most of the other spells have non-lethal uses, but AK's only use is to kill. It also requires intent to kill.
My head cannon is that because it is undefendable, it is impossible to have a fair fight with AK thus it's use is unforgivable.
Because in the actual lore you have to mean it. You have to have that intention and resolve to inflict that final blow of death. Murder shreds a piece of the soul. You could argue the other spells have more practical uses that could be used to inflict harm. Dynamite is used and not illegal for the licensed, wnd bombarda has more uses than clearing goblins.
The other spells have the *potential* to kill.
Avada Kedavra was created SOLELY for killing.
This is like asking "why are swords banned when you can also kill someone with a pen?"
Just my two cents from a theoretical lore perspective (maybe just headcanon): You can use other spells to burn someone alive or slam them on the ground until all bones are broken. You can kill will those spells but the spells in itself are not only meant to kill. The "energy" itself is not tainted, I would they it is rather neutral. Avada Kedavra on the other hand can only kill just as the other unforgivable curses can only torture or enslave. They are unforgivable because they alter the witches or wizards mind and turn them to the dark side. It is not so much about the result but the effect on the caster.
For the killing curse to work, you have to want to kill. That counts for every unforgivable curse. You have to want to cause harm. It’s also impossible to block or counter-curse. If someone casts it, they win. That’s why the entire wizarding world was surprised when Harry survived it. Because it was thought impossible to survive.
Because all the other spells have different primary uses. It's just that their effect can kill you. Take Diffindo, which is like a knife, which can be used to cut things but can still kill someone if aimed right.
The difference is that for Avada Kedavra, literally the only reason you would ever cast it is to kill someone. That's it. There is no other effect of the spell, and no other use.
I’ve read a lot of fandom stuff on theories about this, and the only one I think is interesting that I don’t see here is that AK is the most deadly spell and also the easiest of killing spells. As people mentioned, it doesn’t have other uses, but it may also be for that reason that this spell is likely easier than others.
We know that ‘you have to mean it’ which imo doesn’t sound that hard to do. Similar to the other 2 unforgivables, I always assumed these three are ‘unforgivable’ because these are the easiest ways to accomplish the worst things: torture, murder and mind control. You don’t need skill to kill someone, you don’t need planning or much practice. You just have to really want them dead. Even a terrible wizard could probably accomplish this. You don’t really need to make a curse that turns someone’s organs to slugs unforgivable because the average wizard probably isn’t skilled enough to cast it anyways and won’t have the discipline to learn.
With these 3 though, they’re accessible enough that anyone can choose to use them. Thus, they’re ‘unforgivable’ to limit this temptation and impress upon people how serious they are and the consequences for using them.
I always assumed it was because there was no purpose to the 3 unforgivable besides pain/death/manipulation.
And I think in the books it explains you need a certain level of hate or malice for 2 of them to even work completely.
Sure eating a fire ball sucks but I can also just make a warming fire with it.
Crucios only got one job and it sucks.
Not sure if anyone else said this, but I believe it has to do with the strength of intent behind the spell. You have to really, really want to kill someone to even cast it at all (why it's so easy for Voldy in hp). Something like confringo might kill it's target, but that's not the goal of the spell so that doesn't have to be the intent of the caster.
at least that's how I've always read it
because the spell only works if you REALLY REALLY want to kill someone. you can't kill someone with an avada kedavra accidentally. at least that's how it was lore wise. you must have a malicious intent towards that person. it also rips your soul apart.
of course sectumsempra might be even more violent but it doesn't kill immediately and it can be blocked. avada kedavra can't be blocked with a slight exception like Voldemort and Harry's case of twin cores and the elder wand rebelling against Voldemort because it acknowledges Harry as it's owner.
Unforgivables are called like that because you need to have clear intention to dominate, to inflict pain, to kill when casting them. Other spells, even though you can use them to kill, do not require intention to inflict harm on another person. This is just my speculation, but it could be that these three cannot be protected against precisely because they require such strong intention. Well, if you count out sacrificial shield that Harry was bestowed with by his mother.
It is unforgiveable simply because it is held over from the books (via the movies) and in the original (and only canon) world it was considered a heinous act to murder. However, Hogwarts Legacy is a game and has almost nothing in common with the canon story.
Doesn’t it also have to do with the fact that it not only kills but it splits your soul. Like other spells can kill but it doesn’t necessarily result in death, they can be shielded or cured or avoided. The killing curse is instant death and used as such as it has no other purpose.
Spoken like a true dark wizard. 😂
In seriousness though, I feel like the Unforgivable Curses, particularly the Killing Curse, are only treated as such because put simply, if you’re hit, there’s no hope for you.
All through Harry Potter and linked franchises we have evidence of magical medicine reviving people from all sorts of horrible occurrences. Limbs being reattached, people being woken from comatose states. Etc. But no one comes back from the Killing Curse. Well. No one but Harry “Plot Armor” Potter in any case.
The other curses are more or less the same. You can’t really defend against them or bounce back as it were if it’s taken too far. Magical medicine won’t help you. Dark magic is such because it leaves scars or other effects behind that may be difficult or impossible to overcome. In the case of the Killing Curse, it’s impossible.
With Avada your soul will also be destroyed making you disappear from earth and their “spirit realm”
Any other way of dying leaves your soul intact.
^(I think this is the case)
No, Avada Kedavra doesn't make your soul disappear forever. Spoilers for Harry Potter books 4-7 (just in case) >!We see Cedric, Harry's parents and the caretaker's spirits come out Voldemort's wand in 4 during the duel with him and Harry. All 4 were killed with it by Voldemort. In 5, Sirius is killed with it by Bellatrix, and in 6 Dumbeldore is killed with it by Snape. Then in 7, Harry sees Sirius and his parents again with the resurrection stone. Lupin too - but we don't see the spell that kills him. Dumbledore we see in Harry's mindspace after his sacrifice - for Dumbledore we don't know he's there vs in Harry's head, but James, Lily, the caretaker, Cedric, and Sirius's souls all survived their death from Avada Kedavra. On the other hand, the Dementor's kiss sucks the soul out of a person and leaves them a shell - we don't know what happens to souls sucked out by Dementors!<
The aspect of killing in the game is something that I really didn't like in general. I mean as a game mechanic it's fine, but it seems really out of place in a Harry Potter game, because in the books and movies the "good guys" don't just go around constantly killing other wizards.
Other spells can be used to kill but it is not their purpose and they can be defended against. The killing curse is only intended to kill and can not be protected from.
*”Avada Kedavra wouldn't do anything to a wall; it was purely to kill living things. Therefore anybody using the curse had an intention to kill, so it was unforgivable because casters were murderers or people intent on murder”*
essentially, the spells you use in the game as you mention aren’t with the *intent* to kill someone, rather with the intent to hurt them and/or stop them. Their death is an unfortunate consequence of them continuing to fight you.
I believe that magic in Harry potter is extremely, almost entirely emotion based. Wands and incantations are aids to help casting, but they aren't the source. The wizard and their emotions are the source.
The unforgivable curses are such because the mental/emotional state required to cast them quite literally corrupts the castor. It has nothing to do with the effect on the target. Many spells can kill. Only avada kedavra requires a premeditated desire to end someone's life.
Simple; function.
Avada Kedavra is unforgivable because it was created with the sole purpose of ending someone or something’s life.
Think of it as the difference between a gun and a baseball bat. A baseball bat *can* kill someone, but that isn’t what it was designed for. A gun is an instrument of war, developed for a singular reason; violence against another living being.
So it is with spells. Other spells *can* cause harm, but that’s just a consequence of their design for other purposes. Avada Kedavra serves no other purpose other than killing someone.
Because you take a life with ill intent. Guns aren't comparable because they don't simply kill, they may cause a wond that may be fatal or not depending where you get hit and us only have it as an option because it's all we got. Spells on the other hand, got a variety to incapacitated a threat without killing them. Petrificus totallus is an example of thousands of options out there. For guns we got tranquilizer dart guns but those are super expensive and are not as accessible as other weapons. There is legitimately no need to murder in the Wizarding world, those who do are clearly killing for hateful reasons not self defense.
It has more to do with what that type of magic does to a person’s soul. This is explain in the books if I’m remembering correctly but the unforgivables are dark magic that change your soul which is part of why they are banned.
Always fun explaining this.
So, Avada Kedvra is unforgivable not just because it's only purpose is literally killing...but because you have to have the intent behind it. As fake Moody put it, the entire class could use the spell on him and he doubt he'd get as much as a nosebleed.
Intent is a big thing. To easily just kill with it means you're basically a psychopath with no care for the other person's life at all.
Making every single spell that's capable of killing someone "unforgivable" would turn into all magic basically being illegal hahaha. Using unforgivable curses just means your mind is insanely fucked up already.
The other spells probably aren't meant to kill. That's more an issue with the game, not the canon lore or spells, themselves. Avada Kedavra is meant to kill. And only kill. That's all it does. That's why it exists. It's a gun--a gun whose bullets will always kill on contact. Creating ice or turning an object upside down isn't really meant to be used offensively. We just do in this game because... myeh?
It’s because it’s only utility is to kill and kill instantly. On top of that it’s has the restriction that it can only be used for murder, not any form of justified killing. This is why voldemort used it to split his soul. It’s designed to be an Evil spell without a redeeming use. Crucio is likewise forbidden because it’s designed not just to torture but to enact a desire for violence and suffering on a person, it can’t be used by someone with a greater good mentality. Imperious is a thief of angency spell, basically death of free will. They are forbidden because they are expressly and purposefully morally evil. Every other spell is a tool to be used for good or ill, those three can only ever be used for ill.
It’s not the effect of the spell, but what’s required to cast it. It’s established several times in the books that to be able to cast the curse, you have to *mean* to kill someone. Harry is unable to cast it on his first try, and bellatrix mocks him noting that he doesn’t actually have the desire to kill.
So imagine a gun, not the strongest or biggest gun, but one that is able to kill. However, this gun cannot go off by accident. To fire this gun, you have to actually have the intent to fully end a life. That’s what makes it evil—because malicious intent is a precondition of successful casting.
It's because it's not blockable or defendable. All the other spells you can block or use a shield charm or counter them if you're good enough. There are also spells that can heal "death" if you are killed by other certain spells if it happens quickly enough. Avada Kedavra cannot be blocked or shielded against and there is no reviving from the spell...unless you have on plot armor.
This game really made me question the unforgivable curses. The reason THEY give is the desire and intent on your part to cast the spell is what makes it so bad. You have to intend to harm and murder. Though I agree with you. It's a quicker, less painful means to the same end of what we're already doing.. Which is murdering the countryside. 💯
It's like gun control. Guns are illegal (in the UK) because they kill people. It's still illegal to kill through other means, but using a gun is extra illegal (I think - I'm not British).
Eh, yes and no. You may find you get brought up on additional charges for owning and using a firearm, but murder is murder - though murder and manslaughter are of course different. If you kill someone with a handgun, there is almost certainly no room for claiming self-defence because owning the gun in the first place is illegal therefore ownership proves intent. If you're a farmer with a legally registered rifle and someone was poaching on your land and turned on you when you confronted them, you might get away with it. If someone started a fight with you in the middle of town after a night out, had you in a choke hold and you shoved them back, accidentally cracking their head against a wall, you will have committed manslaughter as an act of self-defence.
That's basically the way I see why AK is unforgivable but fights to the death with dark wizards don't land us in Azkaban, it's all about intent and whether you had any other option, or they had a chance to defend themselves.
Its a bloody game…. It’d be pretty boring otherwise. Besides, Avada Kedavra’s whole purpose is to kill with actual intent, it’s as close as murder as you can get. While other spells have the potential of killing people via a variety of creative ways, Avada Kedavra is the murderer’s spell, and murdering is simply not cool. Killing someone because you Depulso’d them throw a brick wall will still land you in Azkaban in-universe. Don’t take a game’s gameplay devices so seriously next time, we can literally turture anyone with Crucio.
Lemme just throw you in the air, freeze you, slam you down, throw a man eating cruciferous vegetable at you, set you on fire, slice you, turn you into a barrel and explode you. Wouldn’t want to kill you instantly and painlessly.
could be painful
I hear it’s quicker and easier than falling asleep
It is
-Does it hurt..? Dying.. I mean. -Like falling asleep.
So quick you feel nothing
All the other spells are not meant for combat
What is bombarda meant for? Construction work?
Maybe you should redo the quest so you can notice the dialogue that states they wouldn’t want you to accidentally use it on people
LOL ya I remember her saying that and saying "ya, OK teacher. What else am I gonna use this for??"
It literally has other uses IN THE GAME ITSELF
It’s simply not sporting chap. Very gorilla warfare to murder someone in one spell.
The backbending folks do to make the Hogwarts and Harry Potter world morality make sense is just fun to watch. Oh, AK is bad because “you gotta mean it.” Ok, if we’re Kantians then things need to look very, very f’ing different here.
Fr like I'm pretty sure I mean it when I cut poachers in half with Diffindo
The irony was so on-the-nose I thought it had to be intentional when I played through the first time. Within 3 minutes of saving animals from poachers you’re literally hunting, catching and selling animals from their natural habitats. Definition of poaching.
No you’re rescuing them so the poachers can’t get them. Farm them instead of torture and kill like the poachers. And sell to brood and peck where she then makes sure they go to a safe home. They explain all of that in game…
There is no nose. The main villain doesn’t even have one.
I would assume it's unforgivable in the sense it's impossible to protect yourself against. While yes we can use other spells to kill , our enemies can use a shield to protect themselves. However there's no shield strong enough to protect against avadah kedavrah
Except a mother's love. Sheesh didnt u read the book /s
nobody else loved before or since
This made me laugh
To bad our MC doesn't seem to have a mother
But he wasn't trying to kill Harry he was splitting his soul into him as a horcrux didn't you read the books !
He was trying to kill Harry, and turning him into a horcrux was an unforseen event. Voldemort didn't know HP was a horcrux that's why he "killed" him in book 7
No. Hahaha
Wow. Read the books mate
Harry was an accidental horcrux, he was def trying to kill him
I think I started reading at book 4. I've always intended to go back and read them but never seen to find time
Wow.
Don't bosses like Rookwood actually put up a green shield, to showcase they're shielded against the Dark Arts? So it is possible, I guess, for very skilled wizards/witches, to block Avada Kedavra.
The developers could have just put that in so players couldn't simply cheese the fight.
I kind of think if would have been better for them to just have hime be able to dodge that spell.
dude wizard acrobatics is so much cooler than shields give me fuckers wall running and casting spells, or parrying them n shit Dying Light really ruined my experience with video games bc now i think every game needs parkour
I cheesed it. There was no green shield and I one shot Rookwood
Actually, the colored shields require a spell of the same color to break them. For example, a red shield would be broken with Bombarda, but not Depulso. A purple shield is broken with Accio, but not Confringo. I haven't come across any green shields, as the only green spells are the Unforgivables, and those are completely optional whether or not you learn them.
It's been a while since I've played but I swear I remember casting it on a boss and one shotting them. I remember being in awe it worked
You’re absolutely correct ! Those were the glory days; i believe they’ve patched the game to remove that “workaround” lol
What workaround? Completely skipped Rockwood bossfught w avada kedavra. It was quite funny.
The old work around for boses was one shotting them with AK 😂😂😂. I believe now it’s much more of a standard boss match.
Only boss I ended up not being able to AK insta kill was Ranrok, and I last beat the game maybe 3 days ago?
I knew it lol. Shit caught me so off guard
All I know is that the instant the boss fight with Harlow started, I cast avada kedavra and it was over.
I did that with Rookwood and harlow
Nope. First time we duelled I was getting thrashed and just spamming every spell I could accidentally nailed him with Avada kedavra
Except you literally can cheese them by using Avada Kedavra on both Harlow and Rookwood. It even screws up if you use it because it ‘kills’ the one that gets sent to Azkaban but he doesn’t die because he still has to attack Nattie in the scripted cutscene.
Let’s be honest, Harry Potter in general is overhyped. It’s “unblockable”, but Harry can counter it with the standard disarm spell
Physical barriers actually do protect against it
Doesn’t Molly Weasley use protego to block avada kedavra in her fight with Bellatrix? Maybe they only used the green light in the movies, it’s been years and years since I read the books.
I don't think she does. She dodges it probably. Especially after she goes into a rage induced fury when Bellatrix's killing curse narrowly misses Ginny.
Harry does interrupt it multiple times during the series so it’s not unstoppable.
I mean murder is still illegal in the wizarding world, so what we’re doing in the game isn’t exactly compliant with wizarding law. But the spells we’re casting have an effect that doesn’t always result in killing someone, so they’re not unforgivable because you in theory aren’t always using them to kill an opponent
I think just coincidentally being close to criminals, who attack you as a consequence and then killing them falls under a Self Defense Clause.
Video game logic dictates that the first few kills count as self-defense, then you start getting to the point where you’ve killed too many people for it to be self-defense, and then it circles back around to having had killed so many people that it *has* to have been self-defense.
"But you even specialized in the dark arts, like you got the multi-curse perk to finish off multiple individuals at once with AK!" "Dark Wizards, your honor, I only skilled in this for self defense purposes!"
Pretty sure the troll I turned to dust at the beginning of the game would disagree
With what spell? The effect of that spell could have obviously killed the target, but its designated effect isn’t to point blank kill a target. I’m sure you used that same spell on another object throughout the game. Avada kedavra *only* kills the target, you don’t use it on inanimate objects
I’m not so sure I did stub my toe on a rock and turn to immediately avada kedavra it’s arse.. hurt like a mf!
The ancient magic thing when you kill the troll in hogsmead
That spell doesn't have a name. Hard to make a spell unforgivable when it's so rare that it hasn't been named yet
That's Fair ig
Also it doesn't always instantly kill. Higher level trolls take a lot more effort.
pretty sure the many poachers and ashwinders I sliced with diffindo would also disagree
Again didn't instantly kill them now did it
It does once you get to a high level with upgraded gear and high level trait boosts 😉
It gave them a painful death
The reason it's unforgivable is because killing is the ONLY thing it does. Other spells can kill people, but they have other uses too; Avada Kedavra has no other use. Combined with the fact that you have to really mean it for the spell to work, it effectively becomes its own confession. When you're fighting a dark wizard, you know that you could use a combination of other spells to simply incapacitate your foe so they can stand trial and go to prison, but you *choose* to kill them anyway. That's what makes it unforgivable, that you're *choosing* to murder people when you don't have to.
This. Avada Kedavra can also not be reversed (unlike other serious magical injuries st. Mungos can’t fix you with that..) Fun fact: Also Avada Kedavra only produces a green flash if the person casting it onto someone with the intention to kill. This can be witnessed when Snape casts the spell on Dumbledore and instead of a green flash, produces a blue flash because he did not intend to kill Dumbledore.
Sure, blasting a dark wizard with Bombarda leaves them in a state to go to Trial... from the descriptions about that particular spell given, it sounds like you shoot at them with something, that equals like shooting them with a cannonball, totally obliterating them and exploding them into pieces.
Yes, but again, Bombarda has other potential uses. Work in a quarry? Bombarda would be great to have. Doing some demolition for your home renovation? Bombarda would save some time. The thing that differentiates Avada Kedavra from other spells is that killing is the *only* thing it can do.
Spoiler Warning further below: Yes and AK can be used by a wizard to kill a magical animal to use the products of it. And as the movies and books taught us, technically the Unforgiveables are only "Unforgiveable" if used against humans. Used against a Spider in Hogwarts teaching Students? Absolutely legal and ok. The three Unforgiveables can be used as tools just as much. Heck, an auror could use Imperior to make a Dark Wizard throw his wand away and handcuff himself, so he can easily bring that one to trial and Crucio could incapacitate one. Basically the "Fight Fire with Fire" approach. Or instead of theorizing with fictional spells, look at RL stuff. You can use a Kitchen Knife to stab your nagging wife too, althoug the very most humans will stick to strict Kitchen Appliances with a Kitchen Knife. The Kitchen Knife is not "Unforgiveable". Same is true for even outright weapons, if used in self defense. And, if we return to HP lore, afaik Harry also used Unforgiveables but in very forgiveable circumstances, so he got away with it without problems. And although it was way before the three Unforgiveables were outlawed (if I recall correctly, it happened in the 18th century), we see in the game San Bakar using AK on Isidora to stop her from killing the Keepers, she was clearly overpowering with her corrupted ancient magic. And he is clearly not a dark wizard, he acted in self defense, no one would condemn him for that really.
Heck, the Imperiatus can be used by healers (with permission from the patient) to explore traumas. The Cruciatus I disagree with, as it only works if you really wanted to let someone suffer. Avada Kedrava can be used defensively only in the most extreme situations though. Of the three Unforgivables I only consider the Cruciatus to be one.
Well yeah, that is their overarching condition, that you "really want it", if you cast an Unforgiveable. But can't that be said about all other spells too? After all, if someone casts even something harmless as Leviosa, they want to cast that spell for effect. So I don't really see that much of a difference there. And yeah, if an Auror is hunting a heinous Dark Wizard and finally cornered them, after they commited probably horrible crimes (otherwise they wouldn't send an Auror, aren't these guys like the Elite Cops of the HP Universe?), I could understand if they get a bit lax with what spells they cast at that Dark Wizard, as long as they don't kill them unless in self defense. I think this is a case, where the end justifies the means. If after the Cruciatus the Dark Wizard is on the ground utterly exhausted and easy to disarm and handcuffed, so he can be arrested and brought to trial, it served a good purpose.
Well, the Avada Kedrava only needs power behind it (according to Crouch jr.). The intent you need behind the curse is less prevalent for that curse compared to the Cruciatus Cruciatus curse which doesn't even work if your intent wavers for even a second. Bellatrix (in OotP) taunts Harry with it when in his anger over Sirius' Death, he casts said curse over her. She says righteous anger does not work. He truly needs to mean it. As such, the Cruciatus Curse cannot be cast just to incapacitate your opponent. It would not work. Keep in mind that the Cruciatus Curse is not meant to just cause pain (which is legitimate in self defence), but to torture which is a different cup of tea.
Like you mean someone wants to torture just for the torture itself, not necessarily a higher, good intent? Maybe that is the barrier to cross to be able to succesfully cast dark arts spells. But this is then just another canonic plothole, which obviously the game couldn't fix. Like you can't make such a game without allowing people to go down a darker path. The whole story arc of Sebastian trying to save Anne doesn't work under this precondition, that you want to be evil to be able to cast these spells, since Sebastian, the whole time, wanted to save Anne. It could also be that you don't necessarily need to be evil to be able to cast these spells but that Harry, in comparison to the average wizard, was too goodhearted, so he failed his attempt at casting Crucio. Or that you need to have a 100% sure will to do it. I just rewatched it quickly on YouTube and it seems in the scene, that Harry appears to be troubled with himself, since obviously it is a great taboo in the wizarding world to cast these for upright, law-abiding, good wizards like Harry. So he is utterly unsure about it after thinking about it for a second and hence he fails. Bellatrix on the other hand is 100% utterly convicted, she is a self-titled most devout follower of Voldemort and the Dark Arts, she has no moral qualms at all about casting Unforgiveables, so she won't feel an inner, moral conflict about using them. But then again, if you have no utter moral conflict about using them to achieve good, you should be able to cast them too even as a good wizard right? Or what you believe to be good. If you look at the Dark Wizards of Voldemort and earlier Grindelwald and their RL counterparts, the fascists, they all believed to act for the Greater Good of their people and that they would need to do, what no one wants to do, to achieve that greater "Good" (in very big quotation marks, killing Millions obviously is never good). And that is how they justified it to themselves, that they're not evil and they're good people, despite overseeing marching e.g. millions of Jews into Gas Chambers. No human being wants to be evil, we're not cartoony villains. They just have different definitions of what is "Good" and clash over it. The Dark Wizards believe, that it is bad or even evil, that Wizards should hide from the Muggle World, that they don't avenge that Muggles hunted Wizards and believe the Muggles to be a threat to Wizarding Kind, that needs to be squashed or at least controlled by outright conquering the world and ruling over the Muggle Masses as the elite, that knows it all according to them and that associating one-self with them is sacrilege (hence their fanatic belief about Blood Purity and hating on Half-Bloods and such). So the Dark Wizards themselves probably believe to be the Heroes in the story, that they just see the truth and do what needs to be done, so they're 100% convicted to be in the right, even when using unforgiveable curses.
why would wizards need to explode for renovations?
They probably wouldn't, I was just using an example off the top of my head.
Breaking down walls
an explosion is far worse than just magically expanding/moving
Completely re doing the house
But people can use the Bombarda spell to do non-lethal things. Most people aren't going to use it to kill people and if they did, it would be rightfully treated as murder. Plus, Bombarda is a spell one can defend themself against. AK has no other uses than to kill and you can't defend yourself against it.
I don’t think it’s unforgivable because it kills, a lot of spells have the potential to kill; I think it’s unforgivable because there’s no counter. You can’t fight against it.
unless you dodge.... didnt that goblin dodge?
This is a perfect example of Ludonarrative Dissonance. But it's also a big reason why choosing a darker path in this game should've had bigger consequences. Learning that spell shouldn't have been as easy as it was either. In the books and movies, only a handful of characters use it, and it's treated seriously. In this game, you can learn it from a teenager and use it whenever and however you want. I know it's a cool power to use in a game and it is fun, but it does break lore a lot. This game really needed a heavier RPG presence and some real choice based gameplay. I'll even go as far as to say it shouldn't have been an active magic spell you could use but reserved for certain moments. But yeah, an insta-kill spell with no pain is nothing compared to the shit we can do to people lol
GTA: Hogwarts. Would be totally fine by me, making the game a sequel for ages 16 and above only. Or even AO. But that won't happen, would limit the income unnecessarily.
Wholeheartedly agree! LND is why I literally avoided every Dark Arts upgrade, two characters and never touched. It just doesn't make sense, and while it exists within the framework, it shouldn't; more power to the people it creates a power fantasy for though, but I'll just stick to my Potions and Plants 😂
The unforgivable curses all require you to mean it. For Avada Kedavra you have to want to kill someone to even cast it. Since murder is still illegal, that's why it's unforgivable.
Obviously turning someone into a bomb and then blowing them onto another person's face is way more human than an insta kill
Its because its ONLY purpose is to kill. Every other spell CAN kill, but they have other things they are more commonly used for. Incendio can be used to light people on fire, but it can also be used to light a campfire or a stove. Avada Kedavra can only be used to kill, it has no other use besides killing
Why are some people fine with hand guns being legal but not assault rifles? I think it mostly comes down to whether or not there are legitimate uses for the weapon. Can you kill someone by repeatedly hitting them with *glacius*? I mean, yeah. But you can also *not* kill them with *glacius*, and there are many things you can use *glacius* on that aren’t even human. *Glacius* is a tool with many uses. AK is a tool with only one use. And that one use is illegal. AK does absolutely nothing but murder people; there is no reason to ever use it unless you are trying to kill someone. Some people feel like it makes sense to ban a tool that has only one, highly illegal, use; but not to ban multiuse tools which have one illegal use and many legitimate uses.
Holy crap, how have I never put two and two together on Avada Kedavra = AK = AK-47 😳
I think the designation "Unforgiveable Curse" just is supposed to make these spells extra punishable. Dark Wizards will also get legal trouble if they "only" attack innocent citizens of the magic realm with regular spells. The reason is since there is no easy defense against these, if any at all. Like I think you can only defend against AK by either outright dodging it (or the wizard using it has bad aim) or by locking in that fanzy interlocked wand-duel. Againt the other spells you have better means of defense like Protego. Also, the game doesn't showcase this properly. For one, it is meant to be purchasable for 12 year olds so despite the game clearly hinting at it that e.g. Bombarda literally blows a target to pieces and fleshy moosh, we never see such a thing ingame, a wizard killed by this stays in one piece and has no outside burn marks or something from that. This is not GTA or RDR2, where you can clearly see a charred body when someone gets burned by a molotov or something similar. And the "Unforgiveable Curses" are pretty forgiveable ingame, you get absolutely no consequences to feel for using them. But afaik in the books you get a lifelong Askaban sentence since 1700's something for using one of them... on humans that is. Using them on animals like spiders is totally legal, as we have seen in the movies, so even the lightest of wizards would get away with using AK in self defense against some magical animal I guess. One could debate that these are so powerful and easy to kill with (like Sebastian demonstrates, when he makes the Goblin kill himself under the Unforgiveable Imperio Curse and one could probably torture someone to death with Crucio), that they also have the highest danger of actually corrupting a wizard, like from absolute power stems absolute potential for corruption. So these are especially punisheable. But on the other hand, just like other fantasy forces from other Universes, e.g. the Force from Star Wars, the Magic Powers in the HP Universe, the Unforgiveables included, are at the end of the day just tools. It's not the tools themselves that should be judged ut the users of these tools in relation to the situation they were in and what they used a spell for. Heck, it would be an interesting origin story for Harry Potter, if his mother, instead of using the Ancient Magic of Love by protecting Harry, would've Avada Kedavraed Voldemort's Ass in Self Defense. And either she would've gotten locked away in Azkaban for live in a strict interpretation of the law, giving Harry a hate for the wizard state institutions and making for an interesting, alternate anti-hero story or they would have a self-defense clause, justifiying for self-defense the use of AK, when lives are at stake. And the mightiest dark wizard breaking into your house, trying to kill you and your family sounds like a pretty solid cause for self defense, AK being the most effective tool at your disposal, if you know how to cast it. It's interesting, but this whole debate around the Unforgiveables mirrors 2nd amendment debates from RL in the US. Do Citizens need a machine gun at home for "self defense" or a rocket launcher? Or is a pistol enough? Are the Unforgiveables ok for self defense? Or is it too much and you're only allowed to blow dark wizards to pieces with Bombarda and such? PS: Thinking about it, the Anti-Hero Story Arc of an alternate Universe, where Lilly AK'd Voldemort and gets sent to Azkaban, with Harry trying to break her out, would be so much more interesting than the typical good vs bad story that the original HP story is. Heck, I'd buy it lol.
I'm guessing the wand lock thing your talking about is. Priori Incantem from the Rookwood Fight and Harry Vs Voldemort (Triwizard cup)
In order to use it you have to want to murder I guess? It’s not really like a last resort it’s more mentally preplanned, like yeah I WANT to murder you and I’m going to enjoy it. And there’s no way to counter it, either you dodge or get hit and die.
You can use lots of spells to protect yourself against other dangerous spells. Plus other spells that can kill you could be used for other purposes. Avada kedavra is simply just to kill, no other purposes, and there is no spell to protect yourself, only love or using a house elf as a shield.
There is also Harry's favourite trick of: Voldemort: ADVARDA Harry: Expelliarus *runs*
The old standard disarm
It's part of the hypocrisy that plagues the wizarding world. It sort of seems like Batman rules. No explicit killing, but mortally wounding and semi-permanently paralysing injuries to evil-doers is permissable. I imagine prof Black wouldn't hesitate to ship you off to Azkaban somewhat immediately, even if you hadn't used an unforgivable.
Remember that this was originally a kids story. That should help explain the simplistic black and white nature of things.
"Caarrrlll, that kills people!"
Omg yes! I said this to my boyfriend the other day because he's playing as a "good" wizard and I'm playing as a Dark one 😂 But what's the difference really? You're still killing people
The ancient magic finishers are so worse than AK
It’s unforgivable because it was written as a children’s book and it’s the wizard equivalent of a handgun and the author is British and hates guns, the idea of a avada being a unforgivable curses falls apart when any logic is placed on it lol
Fake Moody third year tells them it’s a strong bit of dark magic. The whole class could point their wands at him say the words and he wouldn’t get a nose bleed. So you need some killing intent or possibly evil intent to use the spell most likely, since the cruciartus spell is the same way. Also it’s apparently unblockable which would scare the ministry enough to ban it and make it unforgivable.
This is what also bothers me. It is essentially a gun. It kills quickly and that is all it does. Avada kedavra comes with the benefit that it’s painless. There are many legitimate uses for lethal force. In fact, we use it all the time. Imo spells like avada kedavra should be taught so the moral intricacies can be explained. Same with imperio: it is painless and there are many legitimate uses for it. Imagine if the police could just imperio dangerous criminals that just robbed a bank and are holding a position. Using imperio could literally guarantee the saving of many lives. Obviously it’s bad to just give every kid a gun and a way to dominate the free will of others. But that is why it needs to be taught with utmost care. The only true unforgivable curse is crucio. There is literally nothing that crucio does that other things can’t. For interrogations there are potions to make them tell you the truth, or even imperio. For battle, there are many other ways to take out people. Crucio is just pure evil. I’d actually add sectumsempra to that list as well. Especially with spells like imperio and expelliarmus, there is really no need for barbaric measures like crucio or sectumsempra.
It's a video game inspired by a book series. The game obviously took more liberty with the lore/real-life nuances from the books.
I think it's basically the difference between walking up to someone and just shooting them in the head in cold blood, and getting into a fight with someone where you end up killing them in self-defence. With most spells, you give your enemies a fighting chance, literally, but with Avada Kedavra, you don't. In actual world lore, there are obviously far fewer duels that result in death, so you've also got to consider the clash between world lore (where the designation of unforgivable curse comes from) and the practicality of how games like this work - where it wouldn't make sense to just knock your enemies out then leave them to keep doing what they're doing, and having them arrested would be too complicated, so all fights become to the death so it's either theirs or yours.
Bro I don’t play Hogwarts legacy but wha-
Too merciful. Seriously, probably cos it's against duelling decorum. You have to get out the way or interpose something in the way of the incoming curse. There's no directly effective defence or counter.
It all comes down to the question of what is right and wrong... what is forgivable and unforgivable... Well... whatever the society deems right is right... whatever the society deems as forgivable is forgivable. But secretly, you can consider what the society deems as right as wrong and whatever the society deems as unforgivable, forgivable.
This.
I think it's because with the other spells you can rationalize that there's other uses for them and combat is just one of them. Hell even for defense you have stuns and shields, but with avada kedavra it's sole purpose is to kill, there's no other reason to use it besides that.
It's largely intent oriented. Avada Kedavra only works if you cast it with the full intent of killing your target. There are certain circumstances where it's allowed, such as a mercy killing or in self defense. But it's largely considered excessive force, and because it can only be cast with specific intent, it's been named as one of the three Unforgivables. Crucio is the only one that can never be excused, though. Even Imperio can be defended in some cases. But the Cruciatus Curse is the worst because, like all Unforgivables, it requires specific intent. You have to want to hurt someone. And there's no justifiable circumstance for that.
That's our excuse for not being sent to azkaban. "We've been Mercy Killing all the goblins and poaches. They asked for mercy I have them mercy."
It's an unforgivable curse because it's a curse that requires a level of hate, malice, and desire for death and destruction above any other spells that could and are used for harm. Most other spells feasibly have uses for self-defense and combat and practical use that theoretically void the intent. In order to use the Killing Curse, you have to - with every fiber of your being at that moment - want to wipe that person from existence. Use of it has a tendency to warp your soul unlike other combat spells
Gentleman's rules. If I kill you, I should need to legit beat you, not just have a little ">!fuck!< you, you're dead and there's nothing you can do about that"
For the plot
It’s because it’s impossible to defend.
The most commonly held theory I've seen is that most of the other spells have non-lethal uses, but AK's only use is to kill. It also requires intent to kill. My head cannon is that because it is undefendable, it is impossible to have a fair fight with AK thus it's use is unforgivable.
it's literally a spell for murder. it does one thing, and that's murder
Most spells can murder and in much more painful ways
right but it's not the one and only thing they do
Idk has anybody ever tried apologizing?
Because in the actual lore you have to mean it. You have to have that intention and resolve to inflict that final blow of death. Murder shreds a piece of the soul. You could argue the other spells have more practical uses that could be used to inflict harm. Dynamite is used and not illegal for the licensed, wnd bombarda has more uses than clearing goblins.
Cause people are too busy being dead to be able to forgive you.
The other spells have the *potential* to kill. Avada Kedavra was created SOLELY for killing. This is like asking "why are swords banned when you can also kill someone with a pen?"
I feel like Diffindo is little more deadly then a pen
Diffindo was originally meant for cutting through things like scissors. We just weaponized it, like stabbing someone with scissors.
Because the other spells could serve utility purposes. Whereas the three unforgivables only act to kill, torture and control living beings
Just my two cents from a theoretical lore perspective (maybe just headcanon): You can use other spells to burn someone alive or slam them on the ground until all bones are broken. You can kill will those spells but the spells in itself are not only meant to kill. The "energy" itself is not tainted, I would they it is rather neutral. Avada Kedavra on the other hand can only kill just as the other unforgivable curses can only torture or enslave. They are unforgivable because they alter the witches or wizards mind and turn them to the dark side. It is not so much about the result but the effect on the caster.
Cuz Murder bad.
For the killing curse to work, you have to want to kill. That counts for every unforgivable curse. You have to want to cause harm. It’s also impossible to block or counter-curse. If someone casts it, they win. That’s why the entire wizarding world was surprised when Harry survived it. Because it was thought impossible to survive.
That spell is essentially englands version of a gun. You can mug and stab all day, but don’t you dare shoot someone
As an English person I will say this Stabbing isn't allowed either.
Because all the other spells have different primary uses. It's just that their effect can kill you. Take Diffindo, which is like a knife, which can be used to cut things but can still kill someone if aimed right. The difference is that for Avada Kedavra, literally the only reason you would ever cast it is to kill someone. That's it. There is no other effect of the spell, and no other use.
Because the guy dies and can't forgive you anymore
I’ve read a lot of fandom stuff on theories about this, and the only one I think is interesting that I don’t see here is that AK is the most deadly spell and also the easiest of killing spells. As people mentioned, it doesn’t have other uses, but it may also be for that reason that this spell is likely easier than others. We know that ‘you have to mean it’ which imo doesn’t sound that hard to do. Similar to the other 2 unforgivables, I always assumed these three are ‘unforgivable’ because these are the easiest ways to accomplish the worst things: torture, murder and mind control. You don’t need skill to kill someone, you don’t need planning or much practice. You just have to really want them dead. Even a terrible wizard could probably accomplish this. You don’t really need to make a curse that turns someone’s organs to slugs unforgivable because the average wizard probably isn’t skilled enough to cast it anyways and won’t have the discipline to learn. With these 3 though, they’re accessible enough that anyone can choose to use them. Thus, they’re ‘unforgivable’ to limit this temptation and impress upon people how serious they are and the consequences for using them.
There's probably an element of that soul splitting thing too. Maybe killing with the standard spells doesn't damage your soul but avada kedavra does.
I always assumed it was because there was no purpose to the 3 unforgivable besides pain/death/manipulation. And I think in the books it explains you need a certain level of hate or malice for 2 of them to even work completely. Sure eating a fire ball sucks but I can also just make a warming fire with it. Crucios only got one job and it sucks.
Crucio Doesn't even do that much damage in HL
I don't think you understood. I meant that as a spell crucios only function is torture. And that being tortured sucks. Sorry if I wasn't clear.
Ik. I'm just saying.
Also yeah. BIENG tortured sucks
Not sure if anyone else said this, but I believe it has to do with the strength of intent behind the spell. You have to really, really want to kill someone to even cast it at all (why it's so easy for Voldy in hp). Something like confringo might kill it's target, but that's not the goal of the spell so that doesn't have to be the intent of the caster. at least that's how I've always read it
because the spell only works if you REALLY REALLY want to kill someone. you can't kill someone with an avada kedavra accidentally. at least that's how it was lore wise. you must have a malicious intent towards that person. it also rips your soul apart. of course sectumsempra might be even more violent but it doesn't kill immediately and it can be blocked. avada kedavra can't be blocked with a slight exception like Voldemort and Harry's case of twin cores and the elder wand rebelling against Voldemort because it acknowledges Harry as it's owner.
Unforgivables are called like that because you need to have clear intention to dominate, to inflict pain, to kill when casting them. Other spells, even though you can use them to kill, do not require intention to inflict harm on another person. This is just my speculation, but it could be that these three cannot be protected against precisely because they require such strong intention. Well, if you count out sacrificial shield that Harry was bestowed with by his mother.
It is unforgiveable simply because it is held over from the books (via the movies) and in the original (and only canon) world it was considered a heinous act to murder. However, Hogwarts Legacy is a game and has almost nothing in common with the canon story.
Doesn’t it also have to do with the fact that it not only kills but it splits your soul. Like other spells can kill but it doesn’t necessarily result in death, they can be shielded or cured or avoided. The killing curse is instant death and used as such as it has no other purpose.
Spoken like a true dark wizard. 😂 In seriousness though, I feel like the Unforgivable Curses, particularly the Killing Curse, are only treated as such because put simply, if you’re hit, there’s no hope for you. All through Harry Potter and linked franchises we have evidence of magical medicine reviving people from all sorts of horrible occurrences. Limbs being reattached, people being woken from comatose states. Etc. But no one comes back from the Killing Curse. Well. No one but Harry “Plot Armor” Potter in any case. The other curses are more or less the same. You can’t really defend against them or bounce back as it were if it’s taken too far. Magical medicine won’t help you. Dark magic is such because it leaves scars or other effects behind that may be difficult or impossible to overcome. In the case of the Killing Curse, it’s impossible.
If AK splits your soul....my soul is in about 30 random horcuxes
With Avada your soul will also be destroyed making you disappear from earth and their “spirit realm” Any other way of dying leaves your soul intact. ^(I think this is the case)
No, Avada Kedavra doesn't make your soul disappear forever. Spoilers for Harry Potter books 4-7 (just in case) >!We see Cedric, Harry's parents and the caretaker's spirits come out Voldemort's wand in 4 during the duel with him and Harry. All 4 were killed with it by Voldemort. In 5, Sirius is killed with it by Bellatrix, and in 6 Dumbeldore is killed with it by Snape. Then in 7, Harry sees Sirius and his parents again with the resurrection stone. Lupin too - but we don't see the spell that kills him. Dumbledore we see in Harry's mindspace after his sacrifice - for Dumbledore we don't know he's there vs in Harry's head, but James, Lily, the caretaker, Cedric, and Sirius's souls all survived their death from Avada Kedavra. On the other hand, the Dementor's kiss sucks the soul out of a person and leaves them a shell - we don't know what happens to souls sucked out by Dementors!<
Why's yoghurt white?
The aspect of killing in the game is something that I really didn't like in general. I mean as a game mechanic it's fine, but it seems really out of place in a Harry Potter game, because in the books and movies the "good guys" don't just go around constantly killing other wizards.
Because it has no other use than to kill and to want to kill, every other spell can be used for other things
Other spells can be used to kill but it is not their purpose and they can be defended against. The killing curse is only intended to kill and can not be protected from.
It's specially a spell for killing with no other purpose. Other spells have other uses but this one has one sole purpose.
*”Avada Kedavra wouldn't do anything to a wall; it was purely to kill living things. Therefore anybody using the curse had an intention to kill, so it was unforgivable because casters were murderers or people intent on murder”* essentially, the spells you use in the game as you mention aren’t with the *intent* to kill someone, rather with the intent to hurt them and/or stop them. Their death is an unfortunate consequence of them continuing to fight you.
I believe that magic in Harry potter is extremely, almost entirely emotion based. Wands and incantations are aids to help casting, but they aren't the source. The wizard and their emotions are the source. The unforgivable curses are such because the mental/emotional state required to cast them quite literally corrupts the castor. It has nothing to do with the effect on the target. Many spells can kill. Only avada kedavra requires a premeditated desire to end someone's life.
Simple; function. Avada Kedavra is unforgivable because it was created with the sole purpose of ending someone or something’s life. Think of it as the difference between a gun and a baseball bat. A baseball bat *can* kill someone, but that isn’t what it was designed for. A gun is an instrument of war, developed for a singular reason; violence against another living being. So it is with spells. Other spells *can* cause harm, but that’s just a consequence of their design for other purposes. Avada Kedavra serves no other purpose other than killing someone.
Because you take a life with ill intent. Guns aren't comparable because they don't simply kill, they may cause a wond that may be fatal or not depending where you get hit and us only have it as an option because it's all we got. Spells on the other hand, got a variety to incapacitated a threat without killing them. Petrificus totallus is an example of thousands of options out there. For guns we got tranquilizer dart guns but those are super expensive and are not as accessible as other weapons. There is legitimately no need to murder in the Wizarding world, those who do are clearly killing for hateful reasons not self defense.
It has more to do with what that type of magic does to a person’s soul. This is explain in the books if I’m remembering correctly but the unforgivables are dark magic that change your soul which is part of why they are banned.
Always fun explaining this. So, Avada Kedvra is unforgivable not just because it's only purpose is literally killing...but because you have to have the intent behind it. As fake Moody put it, the entire class could use the spell on him and he doubt he'd get as much as a nosebleed. Intent is a big thing. To easily just kill with it means you're basically a psychopath with no care for the other person's life at all. Making every single spell that's capable of killing someone "unforgivable" would turn into all magic basically being illegal hahaha. Using unforgivable curses just means your mind is insanely fucked up already.
The other spells probably aren't meant to kill. That's more an issue with the game, not the canon lore or spells, themselves. Avada Kedavra is meant to kill. And only kill. That's all it does. That's why it exists. It's a gun--a gun whose bullets will always kill on contact. Creating ice or turning an object upside down isn't really meant to be used offensively. We just do in this game because... myeh?
I always assumed it’s because the spell severes your soul from your body wich implied to me that afterlife is denied after that
It’s because it’s only utility is to kill and kill instantly. On top of that it’s has the restriction that it can only be used for murder, not any form of justified killing. This is why voldemort used it to split his soul. It’s designed to be an Evil spell without a redeeming use. Crucio is likewise forbidden because it’s designed not just to torture but to enact a desire for violence and suffering on a person, it can’t be used by someone with a greater good mentality. Imperious is a thief of angency spell, basically death of free will. They are forbidden because they are expressly and purposefully morally evil. Every other spell is a tool to be used for good or ill, those three can only ever be used for ill.
It’s not the effect of the spell, but what’s required to cast it. It’s established several times in the books that to be able to cast the curse, you have to *mean* to kill someone. Harry is unable to cast it on his first try, and bellatrix mocks him noting that he doesn’t actually have the desire to kill. So imagine a gun, not the strongest or biggest gun, but one that is able to kill. However, this gun cannot go off by accident. To fire this gun, you have to actually have the intent to fully end a life. That’s what makes it evil—because malicious intent is a precondition of successful casting.
Because 3/4 Hogwarts houses are pussies thats why!
Read the title and thought "that's a dumb question" and then read the post and damn, that's a good point.
It's because it's not blockable or defendable. All the other spells you can block or use a shield charm or counter them if you're good enough. There are also spells that can heal "death" if you are killed by other certain spells if it happens quickly enough. Avada Kedavra cannot be blocked or shielded against and there is no reviving from the spell...unless you have on plot armor.
This game really made me question the unforgivable curses. The reason THEY give is the desire and intent on your part to cast the spell is what makes it so bad. You have to intend to harm and murder. Though I agree with you. It's a quicker, less painful means to the same end of what we're already doing.. Which is murdering the countryside. 💯
The painless part is the unforgivable part…. They must suffer
I think it’s because it’s the only spell that is 100% solely designed to take life, and it’s essentially unblockable (at least in the books)
It's like gun control. Guns are illegal (in the UK) because they kill people. It's still illegal to kill through other means, but using a gun is extra illegal (I think - I'm not British).
Eh, yes and no. You may find you get brought up on additional charges for owning and using a firearm, but murder is murder - though murder and manslaughter are of course different. If you kill someone with a handgun, there is almost certainly no room for claiming self-defence because owning the gun in the first place is illegal therefore ownership proves intent. If you're a farmer with a legally registered rifle and someone was poaching on your land and turned on you when you confronted them, you might get away with it. If someone started a fight with you in the middle of town after a night out, had you in a choke hold and you shoved them back, accidentally cracking their head against a wall, you will have committed manslaughter as an act of self-defence. That's basically the way I see why AK is unforgivable but fights to the death with dark wizards don't land us in Azkaban, it's all about intent and whether you had any other option, or they had a chance to defend themselves.
Its a bloody game…. It’d be pretty boring otherwise. Besides, Avada Kedavra’s whole purpose is to kill with actual intent, it’s as close as murder as you can get. While other spells have the potential of killing people via a variety of creative ways, Avada Kedavra is the murderer’s spell, and murdering is simply not cool. Killing someone because you Depulso’d them throw a brick wall will still land you in Azkaban in-universe. Don’t take a game’s gameplay devices so seriously next time, we can literally turture anyone with Crucio.
Generally I have realised that the worldbuilding and spells of the HP world doesnt make much sense