Unbreakable Vows

[Zara]

No: HPFGUIDX 165538

> Bart:
> There is not a lot of canon here, so I am basically using logic. I 
will, however, outline the logic I am using:
> 5) Assumption: No sane person would make an Unbreakable Vow if they 
don't clearly understand what it is they are vowing to do.
> 
> 6) Therefore (second conclusion, combining #3 and #5): The vow is 
what the person making the vow understands it to be. 

zgirnius:
I disagree with 6). A person could make sure they understand what is 
being asked before taking a Vow. But I still think it would be 
possible for them not to know. Suppose Snape was pretty sure 
Voldemort had asked Draco for an ice-cream cone. But he's wrong! 
Voldemort asked Draco to kill Dumbledore. I think Snape would still 
be on the hook for the killing, not the ice-cream. It's the Vower's 
responsibility to make sure they understand what they are agreeing 
to, just as it is the signer's in a RL contract.

That said, I think Snape knew what he was agreeing to.

> Bart:
> Given this (and if you disagree, feel free to show flaws in my 
logic), what do you think SNAPE was thinking he was vowing to do at 
Spinner's End?

zgirnius:
I think Snape was agreeing that, if Draco's seeming inability to it 
himself placed him in need of protection from Voldemort's wrath, 
Snape would kill Dumbledore himself.

Bart:
> Notes: What happens when an unbreakable vow is unachievable due to 
changing of circumstances? How unbreakable is it? Can the person to 
whom the vow was made agree that the vow has been kept, when it 
hasn't? 

zgirnius:
I think if a UV becomes unachievable, then the Vower still dies. This 
would explain the use of weasel words in phrasing the one Vow we ahve 
seen. For example, in the third clause of the one Vow we have seen, 
Snape only promised to kill Dumbledore if it 'proved necessary'. If 
DD had a heart attack early in the book and died, it would not have 
proved necessary for Snape to act. Without the qualifiers, though, it 
would be a problem.