The obligatory Harry Potter 7 thread with spoilers

[Solver]

- Who performed magic late in life, in desperate circumstances?

Speaking of things that were supposed to be in Book7 but weren't:

Why was the information about Hogwarts teacher spouses restricted?
What is/was the Veil?
What would Snape's boggart be? (Though indications are, it'd be Lily dead)

[Kuciwalker]

Not anymore it wouldn't.

[aneeshm]

Another peeve - why the HELL didn't these people fight to kill? Why was it that, even when fighting for their lives, nobody from the "good guys" at Hogwarts ever tried to use AK on their opponents? WTF was wrong with them? Were they COMPLETELY retarded?

Screw the "tear your soul" balderdash - there's plenty of times the good guys kill others. Why the taboo on AK? It would have made the Battle of Hogwarts much, much shorter, and they'd at least have inflicted more considerable casualties on the other side.

[Imran Siddiqui]

It is called an "Unforgivable Curse" for a reason. And it's the worst one. While Imperio and Crucio seemed to be used in very rare circumstance, AK seems to be far beyond that pale.''

Besides, you have to mean it when you say it... and I don't know if the good guys would necessarily mean to kill their opponents, rather than disarm them (except on certain occasions).

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by aneeshm
Another peeve - why the HELL didn't these people fight to kill? Why was it that, even when fighting for their lives, nobody from the "good guys" at Hogwarts ever tried to use AK on their opponents? WTF was wrong with them? Were they COMPLETELY retarded?

Screw the "tear your soul" balderdash - there's plenty of times the good guys kill others. Why the taboo on AK? It would have made the Battle of Hogwarts much, much shorter, and they'd at least have inflicted more considerable casualties on the other side.

AK is probably very bad for you.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Yeah, tearing your soul doesn't sound all that nice.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
It is called an "Unforgivable Curse" for a reason. And it's the worst one. While Imperio and Crucio seemed to be used in very rare circumstance, AK seems to be far beyond that pale.

What, pray tell, is the difference between killing someone using a curse that cuts open their chest, for instance, and another that simply separates body from soul, except that the latter is less physically violent?

Face it - AK is the kindest of the killing curses. Every other method is by definition indirect, and therefore crueller.

When Molly killed Bellatrix, how did she do it? And how was that different from killing her using AK?

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


AK is probably very bad for you.

So the magical world has no concept of "killing in self defence", and even the physical reality of that world reflects this moral stance?

[Kuciwalker]

What, pray tell, is the difference between killing someone using a curse that cuts open their chest, for instance, and another that simply separates body from soul, except that the latter is less physically violent?

The latter curse may have different effects on you? This is magic.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

What, pray tell, is the difference between killing someone using a curse that cuts open their chest, for instance, and another that simply separates body from soul, except that the latter is less physically violent?

The latter curse may have different effects on you? This is magic.

Makes the whole thing needlessly cruel, doesn't it?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

What, pray tell, is the difference between killing someone using a curse that cuts open their chest, for instance, and another that simply separates body from soul, except that the latter is less physically violent?

The latter curse may have different effects on you? This is magic.

Bingo. To us an unforgivable curse, you have the MEAN it. Using AK, means that you have to mean that you want the other to die. May not be the same with Sectumsempura, or whatever other curse. The wanting the other to die and casting AK, ends up splitting the soul... its the intention that counts.

[Kuciwalker]

Er, you're mixing up AK and Horcruxes, IS.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Er, you're mixing up AK and Horcruxes, IS.

Well, Horcruxes are simply a means of storing a split soul. Doesn't mean that the soul doesn't split a little while casting AK (in fact, in HBP, in describing the horcrux, they say the killing curse rips the soul and the horcrux spell puts that ripped piece into a receptacle)... perhaps without a horcrux, it just comes back to you, but a bit more mangled.

DD does tell Snape that he doesn't want Draco to kill him because "That boy's soul is not yet so damaged. I would not have it ripped apart on my account".

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Well, Horcruxes are simply a means of storing a split soul. Doesn't mean that the soul doesn't split a little while casting AK... perhaps without a horcrux, it just comes back to you, but a bit more mangled.

We have no indication what the actual effect of the AK on the caster is, and just the circumstantial evidence that there is one.

DD does tell Snape that he doesn't want Draco to kill him because "That boy's soul is not yet so damaged. I would not have it ripped apart on my account".

I wouldn't take that as literal evidence of the effect of the AK.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
We have no indication what the actual effect of the AK on the caster is, and just the circumstantial evidence that there is one.

According to HBP (page 498 in the hard cover US version), Dumbledore tells Harry:

"By committing murder. Killing rips the soul apart. The wizard intent on creating a Horcrux would use the damage to his advantage: He would encase the torn portion -"