Dark Magic and Snape / Dark Creatures

[justcarol67]

No: HPFGUIDX 161578

Betsy Hp:
> >> I think power can still be a source of corruption if used
unchecked.  But I do think with magic power is power and it's the way
it's *used* that differentiates between good and evil.  For example,
Lockhart's abilities with memory charms.  The memory charms aren't
dark.  Lockhart's abilities with them didn't make him a dark wizard. 
But the *way* he used them was bad.
> >
> 
> a_svirn:
> I don't know about that, since I can't be entirely sure what *dark* 
> is. But they are definitely evil. 

Carol responds:
How are they "definitely evil"? They have the potential to harm, but
how is, say, Aunt Marge harmed by not knowing that she was blown up
and punctured? How are the Robertses harmed by being allowed to forget
that they were levitated and turned upside down by Death Eaters? Maybe
oblivion is best in those cases. Otherwise, they might live in fear
for the rest of their lives. (Granted, Aunt Marge deserves it, but I'm
not talking about what the victim deserves. I'm talking about
Obliviate and what it can accomplish, as well as the intention of the
Obliviators, who clearly are not Dark wizards.)

> a_svirn:
> We've been told how Quirrel came to be corrupted. He "opened his
soul to Lord Voldemort". Which means that he *meant* to be corrupted
as much as Voldemort did. <snip>

Carol responds:

Exactly. He *chose* to fall into evil, to be seduced by the Dark Arts
he was supposed to be fighting. Think of Saruman in LOTR, who "studied
too deeply the arts of the enemy." He was tempted to *practice* the
very arts that he studied, in his case creating evil creatures and
trying to create a Ring of Power. Snape can study the Dark Arts, but
as long as he doesn't yield to temptation and practice them, he won't
be a Dark wizard. Quirrell, in allowing Voldemort to possess him,
became Dark himself, capable of murder (or attempted murder), killing
unicorns and drinking their blood to sustain his evil master, stealing
and using (or rather, attempting to steal and use) the Sorceror's
Stone to resurrect that master. Peter Pettigrew also fell, not through
the temptation to power but through fear and the desire to side with
the biggest bully in his world, whether that's the schoolyard or the
WW. Temptation led him to practice Dark Arts, from Avada Kedavra to
the Dark spells and potions that restored Voldemort. Bellatrix, with
her sadistic impulses, would naturally be pulled spells designed with
no other purpose than to hurt, kill, or dominate, in particular the
Unforgiveable Curses. The desire to use them, which would be far
stronger than the threat of Azkaban (and whatever damage such spells
do to the soul) would be, for her, irresistible--Dark spells turning a
potentially Dark witch into a genuinely Dark witch.

As for the other Blacks, who keep vials of blood and cursed objects in
their house, maybe they only have a propensity to evil. Certainly,
killing their house-elves and putting their heads on the wall would
qualify as Dark, whether they AKd the elves, poisoned them, or
murdered them by beheading.

I'm wondering, though, about Narcissa and Draco. Dobby calls the whole
family "bad, Dark wizards." There's no question that Lucius, a Death
Eater who torments Muggles (with non-Dark spells used with dark
intent), has Imperio'd at least two people, and placed what he knew to
be a Dark object (the diary that would open the CoS and release a
monster, whether or not he knew it was a Basilisk) in a little girl's
cauldron, is a Dark wizard, but why did he consider the rest of the
family Dark? Was it because they supported Voldemort and abused Dobby
himself? It can't, in draco's case, be because he approved of the
diary scheme. He didn't know about it. All he knew was that the
Chamber of Secrets was going to be opened again and that last time it
had been opened, a "Mudblood" died. (I don't think it was their blood
prejudice that made them Dark in his view, but maybe hoping for the
death of innocent people did.) But Dobby's view of Dark and the WW's
view may be two different things.

In any case, I think we're meant to consider objects such as those
sold in Borgin and Burke's, including the cursed opal necklace and the
Hand of Glory, as well as those kept by Lucius Malfoy in the hidden
chamber under his drawing room, as Dark because they are used
exclusively to harm others. The same goes for the diary, even before
it became a Horcrux, because its purpose is to release the Basilisk
and "purify" Hogwarts of those "unworthy" to attend.

Is a spell or object sinister? Is it intended solely to harm or to
promote some unnatural aim such as immortality? Chances are it's Dark,
and so is the wizard who uses it, in most cases. It's *possible* that
Avada Kedavra, a curse designed to kill, can be used for good purposes
since it doesn't cause suffering, but since its intended purpose is
murder and the person using it must intend to kill his victim, it is
itself Dark. I can't see Crucio ever being used for good, or Imperio,
either. (Imagine a parent Imperioing a child to clean up his room.
That parent has become a tyrant, controlling rather than teaching the
child.)

Carol, still worried about the effects of the AK, an unquestionably
Dark curse because it is the instrument of murder, on Snape's mind and
motives, as well as his soul