Bang! You're Dead.

[arcum42]

No: HPFGUIDX 86387

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67"
<justcarol67 at y...> wrote:

> Arcum: 
> > In GoF, Harry has no reason to AK Sirius, and little
> > opportunity to AK Peter. If you mean in PoA, Harry
> > hadn't heard of Avada Kedavra yet...
> 
> Carol: Sorry. PoA, of course. <blush> He *does* want to
> kill Sirius and spends quite a bit of time contemplating
> it. (How he would have done it without having yet heard
> of AK, I don't know, but he wasn't contemplating HOW to
> do it. He simply could not bring himself to commit
> murder). And I didn't say that he intended to AK Peter in
> Gof (meaning PoA!); I said that he *persuaded* Lupin and
> Sirius not to do it, creating a life debt that Peter now
> owes him and preventing them from becoming murderers.

Right. While we don't know if they were going to AK Peter,
it seems likely, and their emotion may have been enough to
pull it off at that moment...

> Arcum: 
> > While I think they'd probably wave the charges if Tom
> > was killed by AK, I feel it is more a matter of not
> > stooping to their level. A bit of dialogue I recall
> > from PS/SS:
> > 
> > "You flatter me," said Dumbledore calmly. "Voldemort
> > had powers I will never have."
> > 
> > "Only because you're too -- well -- noble to use them."
> > 
> > I feel this would cover the unforgivables as well.
> > <snip>
> 
> Carol: I'm not sure about waiving the charges, but
> otherwise I agree with you. Dumbledore doesn't use the
> unforgiveable curses because he doesn't need them and
> because he's "the epitome of goodness." That's the
> standard of behavior we can expect Harry to follow. Good
> is more powerful than Evil and neither must nor should
> use evil methods to achieve its goals. (Barty Crouch Sr.
> may have been good to begin with, but he became tainted
> the moment he began to fight evil with evil.)
> 
I'd say more that he tries to be the epitome of goodness.
He stays on the path of good, but he does have his flaws.
I'm convinced, personally, that when he talks about doing
what is right rather then what is easy, he's talking about
something he hasn't always managed, himself...

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.
> 
> Carol: You're right. I was assuming that he killed Rosier
> (who attacked him first and blew off part of his nose)
> using AK because it's the only killing spell I know of.
> Maybe there are other spells that can kill but are not
> illegal or unforgiveable because there are ways to defend
> against them, whereas AK can't be blocked unless you
> happen to be HP or Dumbledore. 

A lot of spells could kill if used right. Using Accio on
sharp objects behind someone, Wingardium Leviosa, stunning
someone so they fall into something deadly (Sirius),
knocking someone into something hard enough with
Expelliarmus (Snape in PoA, only harder), etc...

> Arcum: 
> > On another note, why does most of the information thus
> > far about unforgivables come from DEs?
> 
> Carol: I'm not sure what you mean. If you mean that it
> comes from DEs because only DEs use those spells, you're
> probably right. But other than Imposter!Moody and
> Bellatrix, who has provided us with information on them?
> I haven't yet checked out the quotes. 

Most of the theoretical information we have on the
unforgivables seems to come directly from DE's, not anyone
on DD's side. But then, that's mainly I!Moody & Bella, so
there really isn't enough information yet.

>I'm frankly relieved by
> the idea that the real Mad Eye may have had some other
> way to kill Rosier. If so, then the Good side has no
> sufficient reason to resort to the unforgiveable curses,
> and there's no need for Harry or the DA or the Order to
> contaminate themselves by using them. That, to me, is
> extremely important in maintaining the distinction
> between good and evil as JKR has defined them.

Right. Further, I suspect the emotions and desires Lily had
when throwing herself in front of Harry were exactly
opposite those needed to AK someone in the first place...

Oh, and rereading Dumbledores reply to "why couldn't
Quirrell touch me?" in PS/SS has several references to
Harry being marked, right after Harry asking about what
turns out to be the prophesy in OoP. I'm going to have to
look at that more closely.

DD saying "us" in this statement in that same section,

"Not a scar, no visible sign... to have been loved so
deeply, even though the person who loved us is gone, will
give us some protection forever."

when DD should be saying "you" bothers me, too...

> > > Carol: Has anyone hunted up all the references in the
> > > books to the Unforgiveable Curses? Who's used them
> > > and in what circumstances and why they're
> > > unforgiveable? That's what I really need to explore
> > > before I take this discussion any further. C.
> >
> Arcum: <snip>
> > Chapter 14 of GoF - "The Unforgivable Curses" has the
> > most information. Chapter 27 of GoF has Sirius's info
> > on their use by Aurors. Chapter 36 of OoP is where the
> > infamous taunt by Bella is.
> 
> Carol: Thanks. I'll print this list for future reference.
> If anyone finds more info on the curses (not examples of
> people casting them), please let me know.
> 
No problem. If you are going to print it out, you may want
to correct the bit about Tom killing his parents. He killed
his grandparents and father, not both parents as I
listed...

> Arcum:
> > Umbridge didn't end up Crucioing Harry, but threatened
> > him with it, and started to cast it.
> 
> Carol: Which shows that right away that she's evil.
> Unlike Harry, who was in a state of great agitation when
> he tried and failed to Crucio Bella, she was perfectly
> calm in choosing to use an illegal and unethical
> spell--not to mention hypocritical since she was trying
> to ban defensive spells and potions that could be used in
> war. I wonder if her magic (and her malice) would have
> been strong enough to make it work. She seems like a
> feeble excuse for a witch, but there's no question of her
> cruelty (making Harry write his lines in his own blood).
> Anyone think she's secretly a DE or in league with them?
> (Arcum, do you have that page reference?)

Page 746 of the US version of OoP for the threat, followed
by crying out "Cruc-" with her wand pointed at Harrys
forehead on page 747. She had "a nasty, eager, excited look
on her face" and pointed at several areas on Harrys body
"trying to decide what would hurt the most" prior to that.
She's even mentioned as panting slightly while doing this.

So, calm is not the right term to describe her at this
point. This scene gives me all too clear of an idea why she
gives Filth approval for whipping.  I don't know about
being a DE, but I think she has the same sadistic mindset.

> Arcum: 
> > Krum cast Crucio while under Imperius. (which is
> > interesting, actually...)
> 
> Carol: Yes. Very interesting. Viktor Krum seems like a
> basically decent person, but he hasn't been taught to
> resist the Imperius curse despite having a DE as
> headmaster (Karkaroff, in my view, is still a DE rather
> than a former DE like Snape. He's a coward and a traitor
> but he still teaches his students the Dark Arts.) I'm
> worried about Krum; he may turn out to be a tool of the
> bad guys if he's so easily manipulated. 

True. Also, the question of where the desire to cause pain
comes from for the Crucio in this case. Krum? Or is it
I!Moody's?

I'd talk about the Weasleys lack of resistance to imperio
and related spells (Ron's skipping, Arthur and the veela,
Ginny and the diary, the possible Imperio!Percy) but that
ground is well covered already...

--Arcum