Unbreakable Vows

[Mike]

No: HPFGUIDX 165565

> In http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/165535
> > Bart:
> > <snip>
> > 5) Assumption: No sane person would make an Unbreakable Vow if 
> > they don't clearly understand what it is they are vowing to do.

Mike:
I'm assuming you are alluding to the possibility that Snape took the 
Vow without knowing the ramifications of the third clause. Would that 
make Snape 'not sane' if he didn't fully understand what was being 
requested of him. My opinion, yes. IOW, I agree with your premise.


> > Bart:
> > 6) Therefore (<snip>: The vow is what the person 
> > making the vow understands it to be.
>
 
> In http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/165538
> 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. <snipping the ice creeam cone :( >
> 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. <snip>

Mike:
I'm agreeing with Zara on this point. You take the Vow you own it.


> Bart:
> 7) This would imply that the Unbreakable Vow is only triggered if 
> the person who had made the vow believes that he or she has broken 
> it.

Mike:

Actually, IMHO since you are vowing *to* someone, I think you are 
agreeing to fulfill the Vow to the satisfaction of that someone. In 
our case, Snape is agreeing to fulfill the Vow to Narcissa's standard 
of what constitutes fulfillment. I also think the purpose of 
the "Bonder" is to invoke the will of the Vow maker on the Vow taker.

What if Dumbledore had successfully faked his death well enough to 
have convinced all present -- and by extension, convinced Narcissa -- 
that he was well and surely dead? In this case, I think Narcissa 
would be "satisfied" that Snape fulfilled the third clause. But of 
course, the follow up question would be: is the Vow now fulfilled and 
therefore ceasing to bind Snape? I'm gonna say yes, but maybe this is 
the point where the "Bonder" has to release the bindee from the Vow.


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

Mike:
You got me thinking here, Zara. The first clause of the Vow was 
pretty tame; "...watch over my son, Draco,..." Kind of hard to 
quantify that one. But that second clause; "... protect him from 
harm?" What if that "harm" was coming from old Voldepants himself? 
Would the Vow force Snape to protect Draco from Voldie? I'm thinking 
yes, which presents an interesting dilemna considering the third 
clause includes, "that the Dark Lord has ordered Draco ..." Upon 
careful consideration, I think that Snape is bound to protect Draco 
from anyone and everyone, "...to the best of your ability..." of 
course. I wonder what LV thought of that clause when Bella told him, 
assuming that she did.

A quick aside here: Why do you think Narcissa added "Draco" to "my 
son" in the first clause? Does Narcissa really have to qualify "my 
son"? Or was this possibly a sneaky way of JKR telling us that Cissy 
has another kid? Intriguing, no?


> 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 have 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.


Mike:
This is another example of what would be satisfactory to Narcissa.
And I agree with your first sentence, with the minor point of saying 
that I don't think a Vow is about "achievable" (Bart's phrasing). The 
Vow is about satisfying the intent of the Vow maker, not fulfilling 
an order like a waiter. What Zara is calling "weasel words", I'm 
thinking are what constitutes proper phasing of a Vow. I'm thinking 
that putting specific wording that requires specific actions into a 
Vow would negate the bond. I have no canon to support that position, 
I'm only making a logic pre-supposition. You don't make or take a Vow 
to do someone's grocery shopping on a particular day. You could take 
a Vow to ensuring another doesn't starve by committing yourself to 
provide that person food enough to survive.


Mike, who is reading Eragon right now and really hopes that sometime 
in DH, Charlie Weasley comes charging in to the rescue with a bunch 
of his buddies riding a squadron of Dragons. Yess!