Bang! You're dead.

[arcum42]

No: HPFGUIDX 86386

>>Arcum:
>I'd like to point out that we have no canon of Moody
>having used the unforgivable curses as of yet. While he
>didn't manage to bring in all the DE's he fought alive,
>there are many other ways he could have killed them. Keep
>in mind that none of the unforgivables in GoF were done by
>Moody. And I do think most of the Aurors using
>unforgivables were bad ones. Keep in mind it wasn't
>limited to AK'ing. They could also use Crucio and Imperio.
>
>Kneasy: Oh, dear. An Auror, wand in hand, facing a foaming
>at the mouth DE and he turns to alternative methods of
>killing? Do you really mean that? I have this wonderful
>vision of Moody beating him to death with his wooden leg
>(yes, I know he probably didn't have it yet, but the image
>is irresistible).
>
As appealing as the mental image of a Death Eater throwing
curses at Moody, and Moody just whipping out a gun and
shooting them is, no, I think he used magic, just not an
unforgivable. I'm sure there are plenty of other spells
Moody could use to kill someone, and if you are already
known for not killing if not neccessary, it isn't too big
of a stretch not to use Unforgivables for it. (And the guy
is missing a leg, eye, and part of his nose. I doubt he's
known for split second reactions anyways...)

>Arcum: Also, I don't really think the whole bit with Bella
>was a red herring. What she said seemed both consistant
>with what Crouch has said about the unforgivables, AK in
>particular:
>
>"Avada Kedavra's a curse that needs a powerful bit of
>magic behind it - you could all get your wands out now and
>point them at me and say the words, and I doubt I'd get so
>much as a nosebleed."
>
>She hasn't really had time to come up with a clever lie,
>IMHO. You'll notice that the moment when he casts Crucio
>is when she drops the baby talk and starts taking him
>seriously.
>
>Kneasy: Yes, I too think you need to be a powerful wizard
>to get the spells to work and Harry isn't there yet. (So
>Harry is not Voldy's equal yet, either.) I feel it goes
>against the grain to rely on someone like Bella,
>especially in those circumstances, for definitive canon.
>Yes, she probably believed that Harry would not be able to
>produce one at all, the fact that he can, although only a
>partial success, changed her view of Harry. He just might
>be able to do some damage after all, so get him to change
>his tactics, is the way I'd read it.

It's not definative, but it seems to fit with what Crouch
was saying, how they are used,(esp. by Umbridge) and, as
I've mentioned, seems related enough to how a patronus is
cast to be plausable as a working theory. It also makes
sense to me that the emotions and desires neccessary to
casting AK successfully would be the opposite of the ones
Lily blocked AK with...

>Arcum: On another note, why does most of the information
>thus far about unforgivables come from DEs?
>
>Kneasy: Hmm. Isn't that interesting. How is this to be
>read? That baddies lie and to expect alterations to the
>canon in later books? Usually it's the hero's friends or
>mentors that do the exposition of how plot devices work.
>Could it be that DD will come along and tell Harry he's
>got it all wrong? Is this cheating on the part of the
>author? Boo! Hiss! Not fair!

Possibly. It would make things interesting. It also fits
with DD's "don't give out information till it's too late"
approach...

>Thanks for taking the trouble to sort out the references;
>very useful.

No problem. One more reference I'm throwing in (from my
other reply to this thread), Page 746-747 of OoP (US
edition): Umbridge gets hot and bothered (not in quite
those words, naturally) at the prospect of Crucioing
Harry...

--Arcum