Latest Site Notices

astralpictures · 05-24-2011, 08:30 PM

Before I thought of this topic, I wanted to do some research to see if my thoughts were explained anywhere else. The best description I found on the curse were from here:

Avada Kedavra Curse - Harry Potter Wiki

I was always curious about the Killing Curse, and how it works. It's described in the books as requiring a bit of powerful magic behind it, and the caster must really mean harm if they want it to work (so they must really feel hate and want the person dead). With this description, I had imagined that to produce the curse took a lot out of the caster. Maybe there was a recharge time or something? And it also sounds like only Dark wizards can produce it. The fake Moody (Crouch Jr.) said all of the students could try to use the curse against him and he wouldn't even get a nose bleed. Really?

But then a few things in the book seemed to contradict the idea that it's difficult to produce:

1. Dunces who aren't very magical like Crabbe and Pettigrew were able to produce the curse, removing the idea that you have to be a powerful wizard to use it.

2. Good wizards could use it also. I believe Lupin and Black would have used it against Pettigrew if Harry hadn't intervened. Aurors could use it in the First War against Death Eaters. Also, Lupin criticized Harry in DH for not being prepared to kill, meaning they were all capable of doing it.

3. Snape used it against Dumbledore, and he didn't feel any hate towards him, nor did he truly want him dead. However, it still worked. This seems to contradict the idea that you need to truly hate and want the victim dead. So does that mean it's easier to use than previously thought? Could the students have pointed their wands at fake Moody and killed him with it?

4. My biggest problem is the way Rowle fires Avada Kedavra constantly during the skirmish at Hogwarts during HBP. He just keeps repeating it over and over again. He also seems like an average wizard without major powers, however, he can use the curse as much as he pleases. Wouldn't all Death Eaters do the same thing during a battle? Why even use other curses if you can use Avada Kedavra as much as possible?

I think the curse would have been better designed if it really did take only a very powerful wizard to use it, and it couldn't be shot over and over because it drains the caster.

looney · 03-05-2012, 09:19 PM

So, there must be other curses that can kill, then why is Avada Kedavra unforgivable and the others aren't?

astralpictures · 03-06-2012, 07:44 AM

Yeah, any spell that is fired at someone with the attempt to kill, unless it's in self-defense or war, should be unforgivable. Remember in DH when Hermione attempts to cut the ropes that Ron is tied up with? She uses Diffindo, the severing charm. The first attempt at it, her hands are shaking so much that her aim misses and she leaves a deep gash in his leg. That is a perfectly legal spell, but it proves that it can harm someone. Imagine if someone uses it for evil reasons, like they would as if it were a knife. It's basically just a slightly less drastic version of Sectumsempra.

I also wonder if someone can cause harm just with the intent, instead of casting a known spell. Look at what Harry did to Marge out of anger. He inflated her, which couldn't have been pleasant for Marge. Is that how he could have killed Sirius? Just pure emotion coming out of his wand? Maybe that's what happened in the Bellatrix-Sirius duel and then the Molly-Bellatrix duel.

looney · 03-06-2012, 08:43 AM

I don't think Harry was powerful enough to deathly harm Sirius without a spell, or even with it. Also, I don't think that deep down he meant to kill him. Remember in Order of the Phoenix, when he casts the Cruciatus curse on Bellatrix, and it only lasted for a second because he didn't really mean it, he didn't really want to hurt her.

Dejana Black · 03-06-2012, 03:43 PM

I was asking myself why any good wizard has never used Avada Kedavra for defence, no for killing Death Eaters. I think that the reason that they didn`t use it is saving many characters for exaple Sirius, Lupin,Harry`s parents,etc. And if they were alive, they could help Harry in the last battle,and J.K.Rowling didn`t want to do that. I think that`s the reason for killing Harry`s nearest people. He must do that alone. So Harry also didn`t use it,he destroy Voldemort with intellect and with no Unforgivable curses. He use the Imperious cursr on goblin in bank bacause he must find horcrux,and a few times `Crucio`when he was in rather painful situations-after loosing his goodfather,his only family,etc.

looney · 03-06-2012, 08:07 PM

Even if he wanted to, he couldn't kill Voldemort with Avada Kedavra, because of the horcruxes. Anyway, there are curses that can kill, and they're not unforgivable. So the Order could've use the other curses to kill the Deatheaters. But still they rarely did so, they usually just captured them and shipped them off to Azkaban.. I guess that's what makes them good - their honour and rightfulness. They probably wanted to be as different from the Deatheaters as they could.

Dejana Black · 03-06-2012, 09:45 PM

I agree with youu, but in other way they can save some lives. Harry can not use AK on Voldemort, that's known, and his parents, too. But Sirius can, maybe Remus ('cause we don't know how he exectly died) ...what about that? I'm asking myself about other killing curses and that they aren't unforgivable, that's right...

militant.merrow · 06-15-2012, 11:40 PM

Avada Kedavra, although all the curses have had so much emphasis put upon them, is just some ordinary spell that just needs some extra concentration because they're a little more risky and can cause greater harm to humanity that any other spell really.. they're only so important because they are so lethal and can be used in a stealthy manner that the ministry had to put into a spotlight to keep it from happening (which doesnt work) and to put more fear into people about it.

Bazookia · 06-15-2012, 11:53 PM

I don't think only dark wizards can use the spell, how would the aurors be able to kill dark wizards if they weren't able to use it? Dark wizards tend to be the only ones that use it cause it's against the law. The kids in the book couldn't use the spell against Moody cause they were first learning it and they diddn't strongly want to kill him. The caster has to be capable of having a true desire to cause the person significant harm.

astralpictures · 06-16-2012, 05:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bazookia

I don't think only dark wizards can use the spell, how would the aurors be able to kill dark wizards if they weren't able to use it?

That was the second point I listed in the original post.

As for kids not being able to use the spell at first, I think that's a dangerous assumption. There are kids out there who are sociopaths and commit murder at a young age. Teenagers with severe emotional problems could probably make the curse. We know Voldemort could do it as a teenager.

I'm standing by the last part of my original post, that the curse should have been more difficult to produce. As easy as it is, the Death Eaters should have been casting it constantly whenever they battled. Why even use other curses in a major fight? Making it hard to cast would have solved that logic flaw.

Furienna · 06-16-2012, 06:17 PM

Well, Barty Crouch Jr hardly was the most sensible man on Earth. But I doubt anyone in Harry's 4th year DADA class was a sociopath, so in a way, he was right.

Padfoot42 · 06-23-2012, 10:33 AM

i think anyone caould use it is you
a) had enough power
b) had enough hatred
c) were mindless enough

In Crabbe and Goyle's case they were mindless thugs who just liked the idea of murder. As for good wizards being able to kill, i think Lupin and Black could have done because they felt enough hatred towards the man who was responsible for the death of their friend. I think moody says he wouldn't get so much as a nosebleed because the students wouldn't hate him enough, mean it enough or possibly have the powers to use it yet. Again, just my own interpretations...I think Snape was able to use the curse against Dumbledore because he was such a powerful wizard and so was able to perform strong curses, regardless. Snape probably didn't feel a strong emotion of hatred at that moment but he probably still felt other strong emotions which would have enabled him to perfoem the curse. As for the death eater... i think he probably fits into all of the above options. He is mindless, feels hatred and has enough power to perform the curse. He may not be exceptionally gifted but he is still able.

I don't know if this is all correct but it's just my opinion.

X-Girl · 06-23-2012, 02:43 PM

You make some very good points in your original post. However, I think the key is not they could produce a version of it but rather that it was successful. That's where a lot of people failed. I also disagree on the last point you made about how the curse doesn't seem as powerful because it doesn't require a "powerful" wizard. In fact, I feel like this is what makes it all the more lethal.

The way I see it is that it takes a lot out of a person to initially attempt the curse...kind of in the same way that it takes a lot to kill a person with any kind of weapon. I remember talking to my boyfriend who's in the military about the type of training they have to undergo and he says that it's more about the state of your mind than any physical strength. He claims that it was ironic because it was always the biggest and toughest guys who had the most difficulty with the mental training exercises that were supposed to prep them for battle.

With practice, anything becomes second nature to a person...especially when combined with the bond that a wand makes its owner.

Isla Coye · 07-17-2012, 09:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by astralpictures

Yeah, any spell that is fired at someone with the attempt to kill, unless it's in self-defense or war, should be unforgivable. Remember in DH when Hermione attempts to cut the ropes that Ron is tied up with? She uses Diffindo, the severing charm. The first attempt at it, her hands are shaking so much that her aim misses and she leaves a deep gash in his leg. That is a perfectly legal spell, but it proves that it can harm someone. Imagine if someone uses it for evil reasons, like they would as if it were a knife. It's basically just a slightly less drastic version of Sectumsempra.

That would be really difficult to police, since something fired in anger could result in death when it might no even have been aimed at that person, or, as in Harry's case with Sectumsempra, when someone had no idea what they were casting.

Also, someone else mentioned aurors using Avada Kedavra to catch bad guys- in my opinion the Auror's job is to capture a criminal and bring them to justice, rather than kill outright- any views on this? I say this because Aurors are meant to be highly skilled wizards and therefore should be more than capable of incapacitating someone without killing them- after all, the Wizengamot are responsible for sentencing, not the Aurors?

Furienna · 07-17-2012, 10:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Isla Coye

Also, someone else mentioned aurors using Avada Kedavra to catch bad guys- in my opinion the Auror's job is to capture a criminal and bring them to justice, rather than kill outright- any views on this? I say this because Aurors are meant to be highly skilled wizards and therefore should be more than capable of incapacitating someone without killing them- after all, the Wizengamot are responsible for sentencing, not the Aurors?

I guess that's like how it is the real world: Some criminals are killed by the police, even though it's not supposed to be that way.

Dainsie · 08-02-2012, 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Isla Coye

Also, someone else mentioned aurors using Avada Kedavra to catch bad guys- in my opinion the Auror's job is to capture a criminal and bring them to justice, rather than kill outright- any views on this? I say this because Aurors are meant to be highly skilled wizards and therefore should be more than capable of incapacitating someone without killing them- after all, the Wizengamot are responsible for sentencing, not the Aurors?

In theory yes capture is the ideal, but if the person you're trying to capture is trying to kill you to get away, or is threatening other people... sometimes I guess there is no choice. And yes Aurors are well trained but criminals can be just as trained; or more to the point, they can possibly use the kind of magic that an Auror wouldn't stoop to - as in the Dumbledore/Voldemort fight. And then there's always days when you aren't at your sharpest.

What I mean to say is that situations aren't always black and white. Yes capturing is their job, but I can understand how it wouldn't always work out that way.

Goldilocks · 10-01-2012, 11:19 PM

The avada kedava is illegal to use. The avada kedava curse will kill if used

astralpictures · 10-20-2012, 08:37 PM

Any person, regardless of age, should still be punished if they fire a gun out of anger and hit someone, even if they weren't fully aware of the consequences. Why should it be any different for a spell? It's hard to prevent, but not difficult to police. If someone cut my chest open in high school, you bet I'd want justice.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Isla Coye

That would be really difficult to police, since something fired in anger could result in death when it might no even have been aimed at that person, or, as in Harry's case with Sectumsempra, when someone had no idea what they were casting.

Lockhart292 · 03-29-2013, 01:16 AM

For people like Crabbe, they were so dumb that I'm sure it was easy for them to hate everyone. With Sirius and Lupin, they truly hated wormtail after having twelve years to reflect on his betrayal. But with snape... He may have focused on how it would save Dumbdore suffering, or may have actually pushed all of his hate on James onto Dumbledore. who knows?

Latest Site Notices

Latest Harry Potter News

Latest FanFics

Latest Forum Posts

Latest Games

Hogwarts RPG

Wizarding World RPG

Members