Hey Guys!I was wondering how you guys felt when Harry (or any of the good guys) used unforgivable curses? It was kind of wierd for me, but it was definitely an interesting part in the story though.The first time Harry used one I said "Whoa, that's different" out loud and everyone in the room looked at me haha. For me it totally showed how dark the times in HPDH really were, so I was basically wondering what you guys thought about it.

I was pleased to see that Harry's character had been allowed to evolve. His use of the curse shows that he was beginning to understand the difference between those who use the curse's for personal gain and those who use the curse's for protection.

I didn't like the goodguys using unforgivables. How can it be okay for one side and not the other?

They had magic to fight with and could disable opponents without killing them. It maybe a stretch, but its kinda like going against the Geneva Convention, isn't it? There are supposed to be limits to the tactics used in warfare, otherwise chaos reigns.

The use of unforgivables by our heros and their allies was one of the elements of book seven that I was either very surprised by, or disappointed at.

I was a bit upset that the good used unforgivable curses. Surely this is wrong, because where do do you draw the line? It can't be one rule for some and a different rule for others. Does this make the good just as bad as the evil in the circumstance when they used the unforgivable curse? Even if they did it to protect and not attack.

I wish there had been another way. It makes me think that the difference between good and evil is small in some ways. However, I can see why JKR made the story contain this. It shows how times have changed, at that the wizarding world is at war once again. Casulties are all part of the process unfortunately.

Potters Phoenix

Hey guys....the ministry was in the hands of Voldemort. Sometimes even if people die, you have to do what is right to correct the balance. Under other circumstances I'd say no, but these were desperate times.

MOD EDIT

This is looking for trouble. Please refrain from making politically laden comments like that.

I actually didn't mind them using unforgivables at all. Not in a 'legal' sense anyway, although I do think the Cruciatus Curse remains evil. However, the other two seem fine to me in war situations. Looking at why these curses are unforgivable:

Avada Kedavra: The equivalent of murder, so obviously unforgivable under normal circumstances.
Cruciatus: Torture and assault.
Imperius: Could be equated to blackmailing, but I think this doesn't really have an equivalent in Muggle terms.

There's no such thing as standing trial for murder when you kill someone in a war, so refusing to use AK seems to me like going to war with rubber bullets. It's war. War has never been ethical, but fighting a war is unavoidable in cases like these. Can anyone really see Molly Weasley standing trial for killing Bellatrix Lestrange with the AK curse? That doesn't make sense.

As for Imperio - heck, it's still war. No-one was going, "Harry, no! Get caught with a Horcrux if you have to, but please, just don't use the Imperius Curse!" I think it's unreasonable to think of that as unethical when seen in the context of a war situation.

I was disappointed that Cruciatus was used, though. Harry used it for no other purpose than to let out his vengeful hatred, and I feel that was unethical on deeper level. I do understand that after everything he had gone through in his life he was going to crack at some point, and it made his character very human, but that doesn't mean that what he did was right and good. I was 'disappointed' in Harry, not in JK Rowling's decision to have him do that, but in the fact that Harry made a wrong decision. I realise that it was necessary, though, in a literary sense.

well since harry's used the cruciatus curse before i wasnt that shocked but i suppose it was different this time because he meant it and i felt like it was a bit out of character for harry to have done that, quite dissapointing.

i was sort of shocked at imperius but im glad that he never used avada kedavra, i know there was a forum before which discussed whether he would or not and i said that he would never use it and im glad he didnt. i think it would be totally out of character for harry to use the killing curse on anyone, even voldemort.

i know it can be said that hes probably just as bad for using the other 2 unforgivable curses but i just think theres something different about AK and like i said im just glad he didnt

as for the other 'good guys' i dont really see a problem with them using the curses, at the end of the day they were protecting their own, i doubt they could have won if they all used expelliarmus

Well the ministry was taken over by the DE so they had to use imperio to help it. FOr the greater good.

Mod Edit: Please check your inbox soon.

Well , some times the use of the unforgivable curses was mandatory, except when harry used the cruciatus curse on Amycus, it would have been better just to stun him.

I thought it was better, even the good guys have to resort to stuff they shouldnt do and it really brought out the dark side to Deathly Hallows.

ALSO if you look most of the time Harry uses them he cant do them very powerful because he doesnt like them so he wasnt doing them out of choice he sort of had no choice but to do them in order to win the battle.

Your forgetting that the unforgivable curses (at least the Cruciatus Curse) were legalized after Voldy took over the Ministry. The Carrows were even teaching them Hogwarts students. It is interesting to draw some parallels with the legalization of torture in the US under the 2006 Military Commissions Act; not to mention Voldys' role as the [Richard] Cheney of the Ministry.

Edit: LOL! I laugh every time that happens. Anyway, I edited the guy's name so it doesn't look like you tried to curse...

I believe that war is simply unethical and as a result everyone involved is also. i can thoroughly understand the use of every unforgivable curse throughout the entire series EXCEPT when harry used cruciatus on the carrows right under macgonagalls nose. i agree with Capricorn...

I didn't really approve, but I didn't disapprove either. I was just sort of shocked that Harry was all of a sudden able to use the Imperius Curse. I don't really remember, but did Rowling mention what it was like for Harry to do that? Did she describe the sensation?
Same thing with the Cruciatus Curse. I understand that Bellatrix sort of, indirectly, gave Harry a lesson on that in Order of the Phoenix, but it was just so strange seeing himdoing that. I never really saw that.
I think that it was a necessary duty. If he hadn't imperiused the goblins in Gringotts then they wouldn't have gotten the last horcrux.
All in all, it wasn't completely horrible...just something different that I didn't expect. Well, I did expect it in the weeks leading up to Deathly Hallows, but I didn't really comprehend it until it was staring me in the face...

I thought that seeing as they didnt do it to hurt people like when they broke into gringots it was alright. Its not like they were hurting anybody (unless voldemort counts i think not) and they didnt really use it for personal gain. I felt that harry using the cruciatus curse against one of the carrows was well justified, cause he shouldnt have spat at McGonagall The only time i was surpirsed was when McGonagall used imperio against one of the carrows.. I always thought she was too good at heart to use one...

I found it a bit wierd. Harry always resented people for using them, then there he is using the imperius cruse without a second thought!

But I can see the logic in some of them.


I couldn't believe JK didn't at least make Harry consider if he's doing bad using one!


Plus, why didn't they go to Azkaban?...

I can understand why the Order members and 'good guys' used them, but to be honest, I found it somewhat frustrating.

The cureses are meant to be illegal. People aren't 'meant' to use them. Those that use them are meant to be punished and jailed.

So if the good guys use them- as defence, as a method of trying to get out information, as a punishment- how does that make them any better than the others that use them.

It's very much a black and white scenario. In GOF we learnt what the curses were and why they are unforgiveable. Doesn't that make them unforgiveable no matter what the circumstances are? It's not a matter of 'well they are unforgiveable, however you're allowed to sink to that level if we're ever at war'. It's a rules of engagement-type thing and I just didn't think it was necessary.

They could have oblivated their memories. They could have set them on fire or done something to distract them while they disarm and capture them. There were other options.

and who exactly is going to enforce these laws? certainly not the ministry of magic.

I thought it was wrong, just like the swearing. The swearing was completely unnecessary and could have been avoided. As was the Unforgivables.

Ok, I understand the characters are growing up, but Harry would not use Unforgivables ... not the Harry that has been described to us in the previous 6 books, anyway

I thought it was necessary at some points, but I loved how Harry killed Voldemort with Expeliarmus. He didn't use Avada Kedavra. I was so proud of him when they were walking around each other talking and Harry kept refering to him as Tom Riddle. That is the exact same thing Dumbledore would have done.

I liked when Harry kills Voldy with Expelliarmus but mostly because that's what he did to escape in GoF.

I think it was perfectly fine for Harry and co. to use Unforgivables. They were fighting absulute evil and they weren't going to win by being nice. The Death Eaters would have enjoyed killing them and their friends and family, they couldn't hesitate to kill, that was nessesary for their survival.

Crucio, well I prefer killing or stunning to tortuing.

I think that when Harry used the cruciatus curse on one of the carrow's, that it was great. There were many topics discussing if he would be able to use an unforgivable curse. I was even more glad that Carrow didn't just fall like bellatrix did. Harry actually did it right. I know that may sound crude, but look at what they were doing to the students at Hogwarts. It was a relief to me to see Harry use such power. It made me feel like he did have a chance at surviving. So to Harry Potter, I give him props.

I can understand that it was kind of wierd for the "good guys" to use the curses, but I was really okay with it in the story. I thought i was really interesting, because it showed how serious the situation was, and it was interesting that they were able to use them. I loved everything about this book!

Harry only used two of the three and he made no attempt to AK anyone. For that matter we dod not know of any "good guy" using it. The grounds for them using them is it was a war going on. Harry founf out early what being a nice guy meant when leaving the Dursley's, just the use of defensive spell gave away who he was and almost cost Hagrid his life. Desperate times called for desperate measures, they did not abuse the use of the curses so good for Harry. And in the final battle with LV he still held to true form against LV and used his calling card spell versus the AK.

Good grief there in a war people and somebody said he could have lit him on fire id rather be AKd lol


but its a war and whos going to catch them if anyone catches him he goes strait to voldermort to die or wat ever

I agree with Door. I don't think the use of unforgiveable curses or swearing did anything positive for the good guys. In fact, I think Molly's line would have been better if she had said "Not my daughter, you WITCH!" Everyone would have known what was meant, and it would have been funnier.

I really did not like how Harry used the Unforgiveable curses. It just didn't seem like him. Why didn't he use the confundus charm at gringotts instead using the imperius curse? And he certainly could have just stunned Carrow in the Ravenclaw common room. It just seemed like he was lowering himself to Voldemorts level by using the curses. However, I do understand how using the curses was neccessary, I just don't like it.

I don't actually remember any time that that happened, but if I had, I'd probably feel exactly the way you did, Laurel. Or I'd be really discusted by how low they stooped.



There's, like, a 5% chance I'd be glad they finallydid something really powerful.


Oh now I remember when they did! It was the first feeling listed that I felt

Well although the characters did use the Unforgivable Curses, this is not the first time Harry has used then. He used the Cruciatus Curse against Bellatrix Lestrange in the Ministry of Magic, after she had just killed Sirius Black [OotP]. Although he didn't succeed in using it, he did use it.

I thought the use of the Unforgivable Curses was nesassary against the Death Eaters, especially when they controlled the Ministry of Magic, Gringotts, and Snatchers were everywhere.

I don't see wheather the trio would have made it alive without the use of Unforgivable Curses. Even though I know they are deffinately WRONG to use, but if they didn't it would have been a REAL miracle if they survived.

I truly don't understand people who would never use the means necessary to get what needs to be done, done. If someone won't do something because it has a stigma placed on it, I believe it is more because they don't trust themselves than because of morals. Everyone has their way of handling things though.

As far as cursing goes, I don't care about the swearing... Even if one replaces a word for a deemed "curse word, " it still has the same meaning from the person delivering the word and therefore should be just as bad to those who don't like foul language. Once again though people are able to hold opinions and I can respect this.

Even after his use of cruciatus, Harry's character still showed control by not using an "unforgivable" on Voldemort.

Yah, that's part of the problem, but that still doesn't make them any less illegal. You had a Ministry official in OOTP who was going to use them and who probably wouldn't get in trouble for it.

It really comes down to a matter of morals and whether or not the end fits the means. There's lots of things in the real world that people would argue can be done and justify their reasons why. Murder, Theft, Speeding, child abuse- all of these can be gotten away with if you have a reason that those who trial you agree with. That doesn't mean that we need to do them though.

All I am saying is that it is disappointing that after all that was said about the killing curse being horrible and the unforgiveable curses in general being illegal and shouldn't be used by decent people, that JKR had all of her good guys--- and more so, her HERO- use them.

Harry & Co. were perfectly justified in using the unforgivables against the minions of the Dark Lord. Harry used the imperius curse to get the horcrux from Gringotts. Had he not used it, then he, Ron, Hermione, and Griphook would have been captured and brutally killed. Furthermore, avada kedavra, while not used widely, would be perfectly acceptable. What you all must remember is taht this is a war. As General William T. Sherman wisely observed, "War is Hell." The only way to defeat an evil enemy, like the Death Eaters, who sought to kill, or kiss all of the muggle borns and establish a Nazi style dictatorship over the land is to overthrow it, and to do so, people will die. Fanatics like Bella, Voldie, Greyback, and Dolohov will fight to the end and will give their enemies no quarter. They will keep on killing until they themselves are killed or overpowered. And even if they are overpowered and imprisoned, the Death Eaters could always escape. They won't reform and suddenly realize that the Dark Lord was wrong. Poisonous toad stools don't change their spots. As for the cruciatus curse and its use, again this is war. Pain, or at least the threat of pain, can be very effective at loosening someone's tongue. And also, Harry used it when Alecto Carrow spat at McGonnagal. Harry is a gentleman and gentlemen have a certain code of honor to observe. He rightly taught that misreable piece of filth a lesson.

As a parting note, one of the earlier posts made a snide political comparison between Cheney and Voldie. Regardless of whatever your political persuation is, firstly it is ignorant to compare our leaders to the Dark Lord, and secondly snide political comments don't belong in a book forum. We are here to discuss aspects of a great book, not to make comments on US foreign policy, so get over it and move on.

My appologies to all for standing briefly on a soapbox, but it was necessary. Se gap lai nhe.

I don't think the imperius curse should earn you a life sentence after all it all comes down to context-what if you just used to make someone look like an idiot or you used it but only for a lesser crime like robbery or like harry did- "for the greater good"

Crucio is pretty bad but it too has exceptions.

Avada kedavra is tricky. while most people agree that murder is one of the worst possible crimes(and in this case its pre meditated after all you don't just accidenatly use it)
but in real life soldiers and the police kill all the time surely wizards have the equvalent of that.

lesser crime? imperius is getting people to do things against their will. i would liken it to armed robbery with hostages. and that is likely to get you a life sentence anyway.

and i don't believe crucio ever has exceptions. it is not ok to torture people for fun. that goes for good guys and bad.

it was awesome and the best thing that bellatrix has never does is to show them how to use them well "YOU HAVE TO MEAN IT POTTER"

lesser crime? imperius is getting people to do things against their will. i would liken it to armed robbery with hostages. and that is likely to get you a life sentence anyway.

I just don't consider it to be in the same league as killing someone. While getting someone to steal something for you is worse than normal robbery it wouldn't earn you a life sentence. the way it is written it sounds as though using it against another human earns you a life sentence for no matter what you use it for. So if Harry uses it at gringotts to avoid getting captured and killed, it helps him greatly to finally get the horcrux and later destroy to finally defeat thye most evil wizard well ever would you still say he deserves a life sentence?

I also remembered imposter moody uses it on his class to train them to resist it(all though hes not a "good guy")

With crucio i don't think there is any exceptions for torturing people for fun but Harry uses it against a death eater and while not neccesary i'd still be on harrys side.

and remember this post was typed very early in the morning

Personally I expected the use of the Unforgivables during DH. I was not surprised when Harry experimented with them in earlier books. Of all of the Unforgivable Curses, I think that the Cruciatus is the worst. It is sadistic torture. "You have to mean it Potter" is what Bella said. Someone to perform that type of curse...to cause pain and discomfort for their own pleasure is simply evil.

I didn't mind when Harry used Imperio on a fellow DE. I think it was because looking at his motives it were not done for personal gain or evil pleasure. It was not to cause pain agaisnt the Death Eater.

Actually, I was hoping that Neville would get a chance for poetic justice and perform the Cruciatus on Bella-just to give her a taste of her own medicine. I don't think he would have held it long because his anger would have been righteous and justified but I wouldn't have minded.

I actually remember some of the aurors using them in the first war. Not all aurors were bad or good, they were just doing their job and rounding up the Death Eaters...they had a choice...Moody always tried to bring them in alive instead of using and Unforgivable. It is a testament to the character of our "good guys". Remember too that Snape was a "good guy" and used the Avada.

In normal circumstances, the use of any of these three curses is simply unforgivable, hence their name. However, the Second War isn't normal circumstances. If the imperius curse is used for the greater good, to gain information or to save lives, then it is good in this circumstance. If the cruciatus curse is used to loosen someone's tongue for information, then it is acceptable under this circumstance. And as for Avada Kedavra, this is war. In war, people will die. I'm not saying that Harry & Co. should use the entrail expelling curse against the Death Eaters, although it would make an example of the fate of DEs. While none of these curses should be used in times of peace, during war they are necessary. Se gap lai nhe.

Tarquin the Proud
i totally agree with u
in using unforgivable curses depends on where and when it was used and if it was used for the greater good why not, especially with the war going in full force
and anyway they are used on DEs who really deserved them

If you look at it, it depended on the use, and this case it is for the greater good. and the baddies use Wingardium Leviosa for bad cause then that is illegal also. What is right and what is wrong depend on the use wholely. In Harry's case the imperius curse is to give peace for the wizarding world, this is a greater good and the cruciatus curse is to teach respect for the Carrows, although i would if someone did abit wrong you should not go and do cruciatus, but in this case it is Death Eater.

I agree with Tarquin the Proud. It may be bad to use them the way the Death Eaters do but when you're fighting evil you can not be nice.
Trtrzgunners you're right about what is right and wrong depends on how you use it. Harry used Imperius to get the Horcrux so they could kill Voldemort. He uses Crucio on some evil dirt bag who is haressing McGonagall who is an elderly lady. She may be awsome but she's gettign old. AK is used to kill the bad guys. They use it to kill the guys who want to kill all the Muggles, children, adults, old people, everyone and who will kill anyone who gets in their way without batting an eye. When you're fighting someone like that you have to kill them beofre they kill you.

~All is fair in War and Love.

This gets into the 'an eye for an eye' argument. Does killing someone make it ok if they killed someone else? You hurt me, so I'm going to hurt you -type mentality. I don't know. Maybe I've done too much study in the way of ethics and behaviour but I still have a problem with this. I don't like the idea that these sort of behaviours become justifiable. And I realise that there are lots of real-world examples that people can through, but I still have a blah-feeling about it. I felt that the 'good guys' were meant to be better than that.

I guess the other thing with this is what about those people who actually LIKE Lord Voldemort. There are some 'supporters' for him around. If it had turned out (and this is a big IF) that Tom Riddle was actually a good guy, would this change people's views? If Harry turned out to be 'evil', would people still say that it's ok for him to use the curses. The problem with wars are that who is 'right' is usually who wins. Imaging for a moment that the Death Eaters won the war and the HP world would probably develop to have the unforgiveable curses as a behaviour management tool for young children. ( Had to laugh there, studies in child abuse will tell you that there used to be a Law in various states of America that said that parents could actually kill disobedient teenagers!)



I agree. And I support this character more than I'd support the good guys who use the curses. There are other ways and if an Auror such as Moody could have managed, then I think the rest of them could as well.

I understand why they were used ... but I don't agree with it. It reminds me of the lousy Star Wars Expanded Universe (redundant, I know) books where characters go to the Dark Side to do something and then come back when they feel like it. They're not 'Situationally Forgivable Curses', they're Unforgivable. And regardless of why he did it, it diminishes him for having done so.

In some ways...I was okay with it but in others I wasn't. Like I didnt like it when Harry use in on a Carrow and well it just seemed violent to me. And when McCgonall says "then we'll duel to kill??" I can't see her saying that. But then Lupin was like you can't just disarm them Harry and was all mad at him for it. But in other ways like it was okay...they were fighting a war and in war you take chances I guess...

I think that it would have been impossible for Harry to win if he hadn't used the Unforgivables. I mean, he used them only when he needed to, didn't he? It's not like he's one of the Death Eaters, using them left, right, and center.

I think we're forgetting that the spells themselves are what's bad, not always the user. It's akin to guns, are they bad themselves? Yeah, I would say so. But have people been justified with their usage? Yes. The spells are unforgivable, but that doesn't mean that there aren't exceptions to where you could excuse someone from using them, even if it was controversial. If Harry had not used the Imperius curse to get the horcrux and had been caught, what if he was killed? What if Voldemort imposed his will upon everyone, resulting in countless more deaths? Harry's questionable call to use the imperius curse certainly beats the alternative. I just think you guys are being slightly too arbitrary. There wasn't any lasting damage done to those he imperiused(they didn't even experience pain), he did it from the best intentions, and when he used the Cruciatus curse he didn't just stand there making fun of her and torture her, he did it once as he needed to incapacitate her. Maybe it wasn't necessary, but Harry was pretty damn mad at this point(Let's face it, who wouldn't be? It's an extreme situation. It's easy for us to talk about it.), and what are they gonna do? Lock him in Azkaban for attacking a Death Eater?

The use of unforgivable curse by Harry was really shocking for me. But I think that makes difference that he used it for defence. The fact of using curses by good people in HPDH shows how different from other novels for young readers is this book. HP shows the real, cruel life, where you have to protect yourself also in the cruel way. It's great that JKR doesn't show reality better than it really is.

Yeah, haha if you're sitting in a room reading the Order of the Phoenix, and saying "Yeah that's Different," I would point and laugh at you too. JK. Well about the curses... If Harry hadn't used them, there would be no story, right? They never would have gotten the Horcrux, and everything will be messed up. Crucio on Lestrange was worth it though.

Harry had to do something that was necessary to destroy Voldermort. i would have done the same thing if i was in the same situation. i was supprised to see that Harry had used an unforgivable curse but i understand why.

I think the use of the curses is permitted under certain circumstances, lifethreatening circumstances. I think it would have been alright for each and every person to use the killing curse if the situation permitted it.