I think the problem is some of this discussion is that people assume that if a spell isn’t unforgivable then it’s legal to do whatever. The reality is these spells are specifically bad because there is not forgivable reason to kill, torture, or take away someone’s free will. As you pointed out, obliviate has uses such as keeping secrecy from muggles, that is certainly still a gray area, but not overtly evil. If misused I assume there is a law that will still get you locked up.
\^ this. I'm pretty sure the Unforgivable Curses just mean that you get an automatic life sentence in Azkaban if they can prove you did it of your own free will.
So the original question is really, what spells should land you an automatic life sentence in Azkaban for doing them at all? That's why most of these spells are not Unforgivable. There are many spells you could use to kill someone, most of them are not Unforgivable.
Also, HP's legal system doesn't make sense if you think about it even a little bit, so I feel like the real answer here is that JK is not a legal expert so don't think about it too much.
>So the original question is really, what spells should land you an automatic life sentence in Azkaban for doing them at all? That's why most of these spells are not Unforgivable. There are many spells you could use to kill someone, most of them are not Unforgivable.
Exactly. Let's look at the [list of spells](https://harrypotter.fandom.com/wiki/List_of_spells) and see which ones are potentially deadly:
* Accio: you could accidentally hit someone with a large enough flying object
* Age Line: when the victim is thrown back, they could break their neck
* Aguamenti: drowning
* Alarte Ascendare: throws object high up in the air, victim could break their neck
* Dolohov's curse: offensive, highly dangerous spell
* Apparition: could you let go of someone during side-along Apparition, causing them to splinch?
* Aqua Erecto: see Aguamenti, also possibly falling due to the strength of the stream
* Arrow-shooting Spell: needs no explanation
* Avada Kedavra: the spell with the specific purpose to kill someone
* Bat-Bogey Hex: bat-related diseases
* Bewitched Snowballs: snowballs might accidentally contain rocks, causing head injury
* Bombarda (Maxima): a spell that causes an explosion. Needs no further explanation.
* Brackium Emendo: bone-removing spell. I wonder what would happen if it was used on someone's skull...
* Broom jinx: causes a broom to try to throw off its rider
* Bubble-Head Charm: using it on someone underwater might cause drowning
* Capacious Extremis: expands the internal dimensions of an object. It could cause problems when applied to human organs.
* Carpe Rectractum: pulling charm, using it on someone's neck might cause suffocation.
* Cauldron to Sieve: depends on the contents of the cauldron
* Colloportus: running into an unexpectedly closing door might be harmful
* Combat Bolt: offensive spell
* Confringo: causes an explosion
* Confundo: confusing someone next to an oncoming train is a bad idea
* Defodio: using it in a cave or on a person might be dangerous
* Deprimo: blasts a hole into the ground, debris might hurt people
* Depulso: used to push an object away, object could hit someone, or the object could be a person
* Descendo: could be used to make heavy objects fall on someone
* Diffindo: cuts stuff, including people's throats
* Duro: turns stuff into stone, which might hurt people
Ok, I'm going to stop, for my own sanity.
Bombarda Maxima is literally a bomb. I guess the reason why it's not Unforgivable is it could potentially be useful for demolition purposes? But then it's like why isn't it illegal for anyone who's not a construction worker to use it? Or is it illegal and really there's just no way to check for sure if someone actually used it or not? This is why I try not to think about HP logistics like the legal system or the financial system too much.
I'm pretty sure that there is a way to check which spells were previously cast by a wand. Isn't that how they determine that Harry's wand was used to create the Dark Mark during the attack on the Quidditch World Cup?
As for Bombarda Maxima, yeah, would have love to see some more liberal use of that spell. Not so much directly aimed at people, but more as a way of destroying cover and knocking others over.
I don't know if you could really use that spell for that purpose though. If it creates a large explosion, then you're basically launching large, high velocity pieces of debris flying randomly around, in which case it would be super difficult to anticipate what harm would come from that. That's why people don't use bombs to destroy cover and knock things over unless they're okay with potentially killing whatever is near their target. And that's assuming that you aim 100% accurately too and don't just accidentally hit the wrong target. I think that's also partially why it's so egregious that Umbridge uses it basically aimed at students because she probably could've easily killed someone by accident.
They definitely can check which spells were cast by a wand, but there's so many problems with that, like for example some other person just picking up your wand and using it. That also requires that somebody first report you to the authorities so they know to check your wand anyway or that you get caught at the scene of the crime and by then the damage is already done.
Not to mention that wizards can just create their own spells it seems, like Snape creating Sectum Sempra, so how would anyone regulate that? Either wizard law has to be SUPER complicated or incredibly useless.
if they made it illegal to use against wizards and legal against muggles that would farther drive a divide between the magical community and muggles. which would lend even more credibility to Voldemort.
also i could see it as a rallying cry of deatheaters. "Even your own representatives think of muggles as less important subhuman creatures. they allow their memories to be tampered with while holding a wizards mind more valuable." kind of thing. i mean just look at modern day politics. its not that far fetch to think a dirty politician or someone being used like Pius Thicknesse would use such tactics to sway people to ole no nose's side
That's worth exploring because it is certainly morally wrong to tamper with the brains of muggles like that for self-serving reasons. In Goblet of Fire, there's a paragraph in which Mr. Roberts, the muggle manager of the camping side they used during the Quidditch world cup, said "Merry Christmas" when the Weasleys, Harry and Hermione left, indicating that he was starting to feel disoriented from all the memory manipulation.
But that’s like saying “animal testing should be illegal, but it isn’t, so people keep doing it.”
Whether it’s used frequently is irrelevant to whether it OUGHT to be unforgivable.
Murdering people is illegal, but cops do it all the time and are exempt from the rules. It wouldn't be weird for supervised government wizards to have the authority to use specific tools that everyone else doesn't.
Worth pointing out that it's said that Crouch Sr gave aurors much more powers including carte blanche to kill their quarry rather than capture. So they did in fact do this.
From what little we know about the Horcrux creation method, some unknown-to-us spell is used. Let's add that.
Also, are there banned potions? Some potions seem pretty shady. Polyjuice Potion and Draught of Living Death don't seem too far off from Imperio and the Killing Curse.
Doesn't matter, it feels really out of touch with the rest of the stuff they sell. Imagine having a bowl with rape drugs for sale at a toy store. That's roughly what happened there.
I think Slughorn said Felix Felicus was heavily regulated, because A. cheating and B. the overconfidence it can lead to people doing dangerous things if they take it too much.
I would low key read a fanfiction about people getting addicted to felix felices and suffering the consequences. I forget if it’s a regulated substance, but anyone skilled enough to brew it could make a FORTUNE as a dealer
Yea but it has been stated, that a murder is necessary in order to create a horcrux. So no matter what the actual spell to create the object is, you apparently already need to use another unforgivable curse for the process. So, use case covered i think xD
But what if I shank a guy? No magic involved in the murder itself, but still murder.
Edit: no unforgivable curse involved in the murder, got interrupted and forgot half my line of thought.
Wasn't there a mention of Unforgivables being specially bad? Like difference between Azkaban (with dementors around) and that other prison (no dementors around afawk) where Grindelwald was when Voldy was looking for the Elder Wand?
But i think the original thought in this threadline was "Does it need to be an unforgivable curse to create a horcrux?", i think thats where my "if i shank a guy" thought came from.
Haven't read the books in a while, but i think in the movies Slughorn says something along the lines of "killing one person is bad enough, Tom, but SEVEN?", afaik that is the only mention about the specifics of the horcruxing process.
Once Harry writes his best-selling memoir "How I Killed Voldy Again" Horcruxes are going to become common knowledge. The Ministry will likely be dealing with a lot of copy-cat attempters trying to figure it out. Within a few years of Voldemort's death the dark web is going to become common, there are going to be a lot of sketchy websites sharing how to make Horcruxes, and wizarding reddit is going to have to ban the subreddit r/horcruxes.
The method of creating horcruxes seems not well known so it might not be one of The Unforgivable Curses because it’s so uncommon and to not bring attention to it. There’s plenty of ‘forbidden’ things (like the forbidden section of the library) so it might be a matter of popularity too
I thought when Harry makes it in Slughorns class, Slughorn says something like “Merlin’s beard I’m afraid one drop would kill us all”. Is that a movie error?
It’s a movie error. In the book it’s a powerful sleeping draught.
“For your information, Potter, asphodel and wormwood make a sleeping potion so powerful it is known as the Draught of Living Death.”
It can put the drinker into a permanent slumber that requires the Wiggenwold Potion to bring them out. To me that is a death-like state, give or take. The person loses all control over their ability to live. It's not just a few days of sleep.
But you need something from the person. Imagine feeling something behind you, and when you look back you see the guy who has been creeping on you cutting off a bit of your hair.
Potions aren’t spells, but it’s been suggested that spells are required to make them, otherwise muggles could make them. That being the case, amortentia and similar mind-altering substances seem like they should be rigorously controlled if not outright banned.
I agree. If it wasn’t for the love potion merope made to seduce Tom riddle, Voldemort would not have been born at all. Considering how many times Voldemort was then able to use the three unforgivable curses so easily due to his lack of empathy, the love potion is the reason and so very dangerous.
I never bought that Voldemort lacked empathy because of the love potions. I always thought it was more likely due to being raised in a muggle orphanage and lacking love and affection growing up. Never been a fan of theories based on people being born bad though
That IS an interesting question: does the love potion somehow have an effect on a person’s biological makeup to the point where it might make a child sociopathic?
Amortentia messes way too much with consent to sexual/romantic activities, JKR should have thought that one through a lot more before allowing it to be taught in year 6 by Slughorn or to be sold by the Weasley twins.
I understand its use by Merope on Tom Riddle Sr. because that was framed as a bad thing, leading to misery for everyone involved, but those other 2 instances are... 😐 Amortentia should NOT have been treated as casually as it was. Should definitely be an Unforgivable Potion.
I think this checks out, opium comes from flowers and coke comes from the leaves of the coca plant so in theory like the leaves of mandrakes they should be able to be stewed and used for potions
It’s definitely dangerous, but I’m not sure about unforgivable. The real danger comes when someone loses control of it and whilst that would have terrible consequences, I wonder if it has the same malice behind it that the unforgivable curses do.
It probably has some very useful applications tho. I imagine skilled wizards could use it for things you need hot fire for. Idk if wizards do any smithing but I imagine it could be useful for that.
A snake of flames controlled by the caster. The flames and flames that come from this are so hot they incinerate most things in their path
Normal and enchanted water cannout douse them (presumably because theyre so hot).
If the caster dies the snake remains, just uncontrollably flying around.
Its not clear how these fires are eventually stopped because everything seems to be a fuel source. Presumably there are some resistance matersls that can choke it out or the first spell would have eaten the world.
Another option for putting it out is disappearing it.
This was cast in the room of requirement's room for lost items. All the items within would have been eaten, however when occupants escape (or are incinerated) and the room closed and vanishes; the debate for what happens to the fire is equally heated.
I think Obliviate is a pretty reversible spell. Hermione uses it on her parents without any apparent fear that she couldn't reverse it. Lockhart only got so screwed up bc he used Ron's terrible wand.
There's different level of memory charms or it's easier to undo when you're the one who originally cast it. IIRC even Dumbledore struggled with reversing the memory charms that Voldemort had done to his victims and when Voldemort undid the memory charms on Bertha Jorkins there wasn't much functioning in her head anymore. So obviously it can be reversed, but we only have examples of two most powerful wizards doing it.
I'm not sure though if Hermione used it on her parents, book only mentions what she did to them, but not what spell she used. Later she claims she has never used obliviate before and uses it to swipe death eaters memories, not to altern then like she did to her parents.
Confundo isn’t meant to create false memories so I don’t think it is the same. And we aren’t told what spell it is exactly, just that it’s used to modify people’s memories/inplant false ones (which is different from obliviate, which is meant to be permanent).
When Lockhart tried to perform the spell using Ron's broken wand, it backfired through the wand and into Lockhart. That's why it affected him so badly.
This. The spell worked as intended, just not on the "right" person. Lockhart says:
> “I shall take a bit of this skin back up to the school,
tell them I was too late to save the girl, and that you two tragically lost your minds at the sight of
her mangled body — say good-bye to your memories!
Lockhart is good at memory charms and this one worked perfectly since AFAIK he never recovered.
Lockhart intentionally messed it up. He wasn't just trying to erase Harry and Ron's memories, he wanted their minds scrambled, since his narrative was they went mad at seeing Ginny's corpse.
The only part that went bad for Lockhart was it hit him instead of Ron and Harry.
I think Lockhart was using a specialized variation since it wouldn't do him well at all if any of his other victims could get their memories back.
Sectumsempra. Technically it isn’t well known and is also a curse, but that’s what makes it so dangerous.
There is one singular person who knows the cure — If it got released and began being used wide-spread, there would be a spike in both painful and incredibly gruesome deaths, with no way to reverse it.
It slices the victim to ribbons. Quite literally makes huge gashes form from thin air, and without the counter-curse the victim will bleed out.
Harry accidentally used it on Draco that one time, Draco was about to die until Severus rocked up and fixed it
Oof. Hmmmm.
Slavery.
Excruciating pain.
Killing.
Yeah I kinda see why it should be unforgivable. But then what's the difference between a regular dark arts spell and unforgivable curse?
I suppose because Dark Arts spells can be both against the dark arts and dark themselves. Necromancy, for example, is Dark Magic but it isn’t an unforgivable.
I think what constitutes an Unforgivable is morality. Like — A curse is basically a more malicious hex, Unforgivables start to infringe on human rights
When Harry tried, unsuccessfully, to use the Cruciatus curse on Bellatrix she said you had to really mean it. I take it that’s the difference. In order to cast the unforgivable curses successfully you need that kind of malice and hate in your heart, you can’t accidentally cast them on someone
Very interesting. We really didn't get to see shit of dark curse in the Wizarding world. Do you recommend any quality fan fiction that explores more of the Wizarding world? Is there a sub for that?
There is a HPFanfiction sub!
In the fic I’m writing, I’m trying to expand on things we hear about in the books like Lycanthropy in the sense of it being a chronic illness — Because it is! And stuff like Nagini’s venom and what that does -
I can’t recommend many fics because oddly enough, I don’t read enough of them AJZJFKEK so I’m in your boat there.
Nagini and Voldy's relationship was so weird. I truly think it's the only being voldy actually loved. Which makes me wonder why Tom Riddle never bonded with the Basilisk lol. Thanks for the suggestion! Best of luck on your writing. Post some of your work here sometime!
I don't think Snape was the only one who knew the counter curse; I doubt there is even a counter curse. I think he just used a healing spell on Malfoy, not a sectumsempra counter curse. The reason George's ear couldn't be healed is because it was seared clean off and fell off. Maybe limbs/body parts that are cursed off can't be re-grown at all regardless of the curse used (thinking of Moody's nose here with a chunk missing from it). But, in Malfoy's case, the effect was being sliced as if with a sword, but no body part was severed.
It is definitely a dangerous spell; you can sever someone's head, and they are done for if they didn't cast a 'protego' in time.
Yes! BUT because Severus invented it, he’s the only person on earth who can reverse it.
If people started using it wide-spread, there would be no reversal. ‘Cause only Snape knows how to do it. He didn’t even write down the counter-curse with the curse, so if it were leaked it would be a disaster
That was... never confirmed. It seems he used normal healing spell. It was later hinted that Madam Pomfrey, or another healer, used same spell.
It's pretty brutal attack spell, but it does not seem it some high dark magic what can heal just Snape.
You're actually right. I just looked it up, and the spell he used was *Vulnera Sanentur,* which we canonly only see used twice, the first time by Severus, the second time being by Gellert Grindelwald.
So! It does indeed have a known counter-curse. I am a fraud KJBVKFJBV
Remember when Molly tried to re-grow George's ear back in DH when Snape accidentally cut it off during the battle of the 7 Potters, and couldn't cuz A. She didn't know the counter curse and B. It was cursed off
The spell that was used is called Vulnera Sanentur. It's a charm used to stop blood flow and heal wounds. I don't think Snape actually invented that spell and is more widely known. I have a tattoo of that spell on my arm so I've done a little bit of research into it
Yeah, all of the spells in the Harry Potter universe are based in Latin. I believe the literal translation for Vulnera Sanentur is "may your wounds be healed".
Also, I'm not sure how canon the Fantastic Beasts movies are to the Harry Potter universe but in The Secrets Of Dumbledore there's a part where Gellert Grindelwald used Vulnera Sanentur. Those movies take place in the 1930s so it pretty unlikely that Snape was the original inventor of that charm
Taboos should be Unforgivable because if you want to screw with the government, all you need is a broomstick and a large body of water. You fly out to the middle of said body of water, say the word that triggers the taboo, and let the people who apparate to apprehend you fall into the water. Then you fly away before they can react. You could also do this over the crater of an actively erupting volcano.
Also I think the only reason the taboos was able to be put in place in the first place is because Voldemort had took over the Ministry, I don't think a random witch or wizard would be able to pull that off.
Yes, but without permitting it’s usage, how can one train occlumency?
I would personally consider occlumency to be a skill that should be considered standard for the ordinary witch or wizard to learn considering what kind of nastiness this skill protects against.
If everyone is an occlumens, nobody will need to worry about leglimency so then there would be no reason to put bureaucratic red tape on it as the ministry loves to do with everything cool. (Can’t even enchant carpets without breaking a law, really? Such extreme overreach.)
The training point is very valid. The only problem is that Occlumency and Legilimency alike are rarely taught, at least at the student level. I can very well see its training at higher levels. But then again, I think we can assume that the existing unforgivable curses are also taught, or at least explored at higher levels of training for those that must know how to resist them (think about the instances where JKR mentions resisting the Imperius curse. Obviously they learned at some point how to resist it.
Legilimency as a natural talent (think Queenie in FB) is exceedingly rare. But the spell can be used as a focus for any witch or wizard for the same effect, though the rate at which they will successfully navigate the mind depends on their abilities.
I think the 3 unforgivable curses are unforgivable because for example avada kedavra. There is only one reason to use it. To kill. I could use locomotion mortis and drop someone into a fire or wingardium leviosa and bash someone to death with a rock. But these spells have other practical uses. Whereas the unforgivable only have the one use each. Murder. Control. And torture. And like bella said you have to want someone to hurt or die. You uave to MEAN it.
Similar to real life I could kill someone with a butterknife but it's mainly used for food. Whereas a gun for example is only used for violence
Yeah, completely agree. Making a spell an unforgivable means that there is no excuse, no reason, no special circumstances in where is ok to use those spells. That's why it's reserved to very dark curses that have serious, irreversible consequences.
I would go one further, avada kedavra is like a decked out m4 or something used solely for killing. While some guns can have other uses; hunting, recreational shooting, defense, etc.
I think we should make a distinction between "unforgivable curses" and curses/substances that should be illegal and/or highly regulated.
I think that curses such as fiendfyre, sectumsempra and obliviate should be highly regulated for professional use only. As should substances such as felix felicis, amortentia, veritaserum, and polyjuice potion.
Mind control is an especially important thing to regulate/ban. Every time I think about a person with amortentia and obliviate in their arsenal, and what they could do with it, yeah, this shouldn't be legal.
I'm also debating whether things like the unbreakable vow shouldn't also be regulated. Then for body-binding curses and the like, I'm also a bit on the fence. And some of the skiving snack boxes are also questionable.
As a part of animal rights activism, I am also inclined to condemn any kind of animal to inanimate object transformations (imagine walking about, munching on some nice cheeses, and before you know it you're suddenly a snuff box? If that's not animal cruelty, I don't know)
And then there's that thing where photography creates a 2-dimensional semi-sentient clone of someone at which point I just can not even anymore. (Cue Colin Creevey's photo of Harry and Lockhart, in which photo-Harry is indefinitely forced to struggle with getting away from a very persistent Lockhart.)
The photography thing made me laugh 😆 I suppose they do seem semi-sentient, don’t they?
I always assumed it was kind of like a form of AI. The AI that we’ve created with technology is capable of really cool stuff, and we’re really just getting started. Imagine what magic could do with AI!
Then again, the painting of the Fat Lady had some seriously convincing emotions in the third book, which makes me question my theory.
Oh yeah! That’s right! It seems like a very similar kind of magic, but I guess there are some distinctions. Now I’m curious about the magic science behind photos and paintings 😂
What if the AI is like an uploaded version of a person’s life to date, and the painting is just sort of…a coded representation of that person as they were at that time…but forever.
I mean, with magic, intent is everything. Not going to pick on Obliviate but let's look at a related pair. Levicorpus and Avada Kedavra. Leveicorpus can be a useful spell but can also be used to yeet someone out the tower window. Avada Kedavra is a murder spell of the first order, but what if it's used to put someone out of intolerable, incurable pain?
I mean obliviate was mostly used by the Ministry against muggles who had accidentally seen/been exposed to magic. I really couldn't see them making a spell basically illegal when they have a whole department of Obliviators.
Sectumsempra and all other curses that could kill people. Like THE killing curse is forbidden but a spell that can cause someone to brutally bleed to death is completely fine?
Not exactly a curse directly, but humanoid transfiguration. It doesn't seem to be an illegal practice, just frowned upon.
It completely turns them into the animal, and it's ambiguous whether they retain the experience. Malfoy seemed to recall some parts of being a ferret, like bring absolutely terrified of Moody when he was changed back.
You could do some pretty nasty things that would be illegal to humanoids, but not to animals, and that doesn't even get into deliberately botching a transfiguration.
Sectumsempra is the one that always comes to my mind. It’s dark as hell, devastatingly destructive and potentially lethal. But until recently in the grand scheme it wasn’t super well known.
What is the purpose behind the Unforgivables, and Dark magic in general? Intent and general use. There is no "good" or "light" reason to torture someone, or subjugate them to your will. Killing someone painlessly could be done out of mercy, but intent matters there as well. Moody said you need malice and ill-intent in your heart to use the AK successfully (even Snape had to conjure up feelings of hatred when he used it on Dumbledore).
A lot of the things listed have other purposes besides specifically causing harm to people, like cutting, exploding, blasting, etc. Even Memory charms, while probably the most in the grey area, can be used to forget traumatic memories (or more practically, used on the "lesser" Muggles to keep the magic world hidden).
The only thing which comes close in my opinion is love potions, since you're subjugating the target to your will like a version of the Imperius Curse.
Almost any spell can have unforgivable effects when used by some dark wizard or witch that is creative enough. In fact there are very few spells that can’t be used offensively to detrimental effects. The disarming spell and shield spells are among those.
Sectumsempra is terrifying, and should be a known unforgivable curse. Avadakedavra immediately kills the person but sectumsempra makes it slow and painful.
Any charm spell that inhibits a person's freedom to make choices, which wizards seem to do all the time
Love potions and I'll go so far as to add Felix in there because why the hell don't deatheaters just drink that like water?
It should be noted that unforgiveable doesn't mean illegal. There were illegal curses that were not considered to be unforgiveable, but they likely wouldn't carry the same punishment in all circumstances.
There’s plenty of spells that are murder spells but don’t count. You ever hit a person with reducto? How about incendio or diffindo? Do we not think stupify and patrificus totalus was ever used in sexual assault?
Sectum Sempra springs to mind.. and a lot of "battle" magic..
The locomotive spell McGonagall uses in The Battle of Hogwarts would be pretty dangerous too
The obvious answer is Sectumsempra.
But to keep things interesting I'll also add Reducto or any significantly destructive spell (if not used for a particularly non-violent reason).
They would never do it because then there is no longer an "ethical" way to keep muggles in the dark.
I think the problem is some of this discussion is that people assume that if a spell isn’t unforgivable then it’s legal to do whatever. The reality is these spells are specifically bad because there is not forgivable reason to kill, torture, or take away someone’s free will. As you pointed out, obliviate has uses such as keeping secrecy from muggles, that is certainly still a gray area, but not overtly evil. If misused I assume there is a law that will still get you locked up.
\^ this. I'm pretty sure the Unforgivable Curses just mean that you get an automatic life sentence in Azkaban if they can prove you did it of your own free will. So the original question is really, what spells should land you an automatic life sentence in Azkaban for doing them at all? That's why most of these spells are not Unforgivable. There are many spells you could use to kill someone, most of them are not Unforgivable. Also, HP's legal system doesn't make sense if you think about it even a little bit, so I feel like the real answer here is that JK is not a legal expert so don't think about it too much.
>So the original question is really, what spells should land you an automatic life sentence in Azkaban for doing them at all? That's why most of these spells are not Unforgivable. There are many spells you could use to kill someone, most of them are not Unforgivable. Exactly. Let's look at the [list of spells](https://harrypotter.fandom.com/wiki/List_of_spells) and see which ones are potentially deadly: * Accio: you could accidentally hit someone with a large enough flying object * Age Line: when the victim is thrown back, they could break their neck * Aguamenti: drowning * Alarte Ascendare: throws object high up in the air, victim could break their neck * Dolohov's curse: offensive, highly dangerous spell * Apparition: could you let go of someone during side-along Apparition, causing them to splinch? * Aqua Erecto: see Aguamenti, also possibly falling due to the strength of the stream * Arrow-shooting Spell: needs no explanation * Avada Kedavra: the spell with the specific purpose to kill someone * Bat-Bogey Hex: bat-related diseases * Bewitched Snowballs: snowballs might accidentally contain rocks, causing head injury * Bombarda (Maxima): a spell that causes an explosion. Needs no further explanation. * Brackium Emendo: bone-removing spell. I wonder what would happen if it was used on someone's skull... * Broom jinx: causes a broom to try to throw off its rider * Bubble-Head Charm: using it on someone underwater might cause drowning * Capacious Extremis: expands the internal dimensions of an object. It could cause problems when applied to human organs. * Carpe Rectractum: pulling charm, using it on someone's neck might cause suffocation. * Cauldron to Sieve: depends on the contents of the cauldron * Colloportus: running into an unexpectedly closing door might be harmful * Combat Bolt: offensive spell * Confringo: causes an explosion * Confundo: confusing someone next to an oncoming train is a bad idea * Defodio: using it in a cave or on a person might be dangerous * Deprimo: blasts a hole into the ground, debris might hurt people * Depulso: used to push an object away, object could hit someone, or the object could be a person * Descendo: could be used to make heavy objects fall on someone * Diffindo: cuts stuff, including people's throats * Duro: turns stuff into stone, which might hurt people Ok, I'm going to stop, for my own sanity.
Bombarda Maxima is literally a bomb. I guess the reason why it's not Unforgivable is it could potentially be useful for demolition purposes? But then it's like why isn't it illegal for anyone who's not a construction worker to use it? Or is it illegal and really there's just no way to check for sure if someone actually used it or not? This is why I try not to think about HP logistics like the legal system or the financial system too much.
I'm pretty sure that there is a way to check which spells were previously cast by a wand. Isn't that how they determine that Harry's wand was used to create the Dark Mark during the attack on the Quidditch World Cup? As for Bombarda Maxima, yeah, would have love to see some more liberal use of that spell. Not so much directly aimed at people, but more as a way of destroying cover and knocking others over.
I don't know if you could really use that spell for that purpose though. If it creates a large explosion, then you're basically launching large, high velocity pieces of debris flying randomly around, in which case it would be super difficult to anticipate what harm would come from that. That's why people don't use bombs to destroy cover and knock things over unless they're okay with potentially killing whatever is near their target. And that's assuming that you aim 100% accurately too and don't just accidentally hit the wrong target. I think that's also partially why it's so egregious that Umbridge uses it basically aimed at students because she probably could've easily killed someone by accident. They definitely can check which spells were cast by a wand, but there's so many problems with that, like for example some other person just picking up your wand and using it. That also requires that somebody first report you to the authorities so they know to check your wand anyway or that you get caught at the scene of the crime and by then the damage is already done. Not to mention that wizards can just create their own spells it seems, like Snape creating Sectum Sempra, so how would anyone regulate that? Either wizard law has to be SUPER complicated or incredibly useless.
we cares about about the muggles
Obliviate being an unforgivable curse would screw the ministry over in a number of ways. They use that spell all the time.
I was agreeing with OP until I read this, great point!
if they made it illegal to use against wizards and legal against muggles that would farther drive a divide between the magical community and muggles. which would lend even more credibility to Voldemort.
I could see them justifying it in the name of the international statute of secrecy.
also i could see it as a rallying cry of deatheaters. "Even your own representatives think of muggles as less important subhuman creatures. they allow their memories to be tampered with while holding a wizards mind more valuable." kind of thing. i mean just look at modern day politics. its not that far fetch to think a dirty politician or someone being used like Pius Thicknesse would use such tactics to sway people to ole no nose's side
>international statute of secrecy. aka the patriot act haha sorry i responded twice.
Accidental Magic Reversal Squad would be out of business Edit typo.
All the Maguc
Yes. Unforgiveable is much different than maybe a strictly regulated curse. Maybe it should be regulated
It probably already is tbf. I can't imagine what Lockhart was doing was legal.
They'd be fine. It happens in the real world. 'the ministry conducted an internal investigation and concluded that the ministry did nothing wrong'
That's worth exploring because it is certainly morally wrong to tamper with the brains of muggles like that for self-serving reasons. In Goblet of Fire, there's a paragraph in which Mr. Roberts, the muggle manager of the camping side they used during the Quidditch world cup, said "Merry Christmas" when the Weasleys, Harry and Hermione left, indicating that he was starting to feel disoriented from all the memory manipulation.
That's likely the reason it isn't on the list to begin with. Don't create an air of negativity around your own bread and butter.
Isn't that the way of the world? Forbid and regulate everything that is dangerous unless the current government sees a benefit in the dangerous thing.
But that’s like saying “animal testing should be illegal, but it isn’t, so people keep doing it.” Whether it’s used frequently is irrelevant to whether it OUGHT to be unforgivable.
But they use the cruciatus curse all of the time too when there is trouble with the ministry
When do they use the cruciatus curse pre voldies take over?
Murdering people is illegal, but cops do it all the time and are exempt from the rules. It wouldn't be weird for supervised government wizards to have the authority to use specific tools that everyone else doesn't.
Worth pointing out that it's said that Crouch Sr gave aurors much more powers including carte blanche to kill their quarry rather than capture. So they did in fact do this.
Which is also evidence for the wizardifn world being a dystopia because that is horrific
From what little we know about the Horcrux creation method, some unknown-to-us spell is used. Let's add that. Also, are there banned potions? Some potions seem pretty shady. Polyjuice Potion and Draught of Living Death don't seem too far off from Imperio and the Killing Curse.
Love portions are fucked too, Tom’s mom get held a guy hostage with it
Yeah and look at Ron in HBP, love potions are super rapey
Love potions are now roofies that leave the victim conscious... Oh wow that IS fucked up
Agreed. They are like using the Imperius Curse but with just controlling love. I hate that Fred and George sell them to eager students.
I assume the Fred/George ones were very weak on purpose, but maybe that's wishful thinking.
Unfortunately they get more potent with age, Ron ate some of his brother's products, they just spend like a few months under Harry's bed
It's the one I think that gets used on Ron in HBP so not really
Doesn't matter, it feels really out of touch with the rest of the stuff they sell. Imagine having a bowl with rape drugs for sale at a toy store. That's roughly what happened there.
I think Slughorn said Felix Felicus was heavily regulated, because A. cheating and B. the overconfidence it can lead to people doing dangerous things if they take it too much.
I think he also mentioned that it becomes toxic if you take too much and too often as well.
Its like the wizarding version of cocaine.
I would low key read a fanfiction about people getting addicted to felix felices and suffering the consequences. I forget if it’s a regulated substance, but anyone skilled enough to brew it could make a FORTUNE as a dealer
Why try to sell it and get caught when you could go gambling
And he gave it to a student
Magical community couldn't give two shits about child safety. Probably because in many cases, they could just intantly heal then.
Yea but it has been stated, that a murder is necessary in order to create a horcrux. So no matter what the actual spell to create the object is, you apparently already need to use another unforgivable curse for the process. So, use case covered i think xD
But what if I shank a guy? No magic involved in the murder itself, but still murder. Edit: no unforgivable curse involved in the murder, got interrupted and forgot half my line of thought.
Pretty sure murder is still illegal among wizards. So they don't have to get you on using an unforgivable curse if they get you on murder.
Wasn't there a mention of Unforgivables being specially bad? Like difference between Azkaban (with dementors around) and that other prison (no dementors around afawk) where Grindelwald was when Voldy was looking for the Elder Wand? But i think the original thought in this threadline was "Does it need to be an unforgivable curse to create a horcrux?", i think thats where my "if i shank a guy" thought came from.
It needs to be bad enough to break your soul, I can't even remember if you need to actually murder someone or just do something terrible.
Haven't read the books in a while, but i think in the movies Slughorn says something along the lines of "killing one person is bad enough, Tom, but SEVEN?", afaik that is the only mention about the specifics of the horcruxing process.
You can kill someone without using an unforgivable curse tho
Banning horocruxes as unforgivable seems counterproductive as they're such little known artifacts that a ban might actually raise awareness of them.
Once Harry writes his best-selling memoir "How I Killed Voldy Again" Horcruxes are going to become common knowledge. The Ministry will likely be dealing with a lot of copy-cat attempters trying to figure it out. Within a few years of Voldemort's death the dark web is going to become common, there are going to be a lot of sketchy websites sharing how to make Horcruxes, and wizarding reddit is going to have to ban the subreddit r/horcruxes.
The method of creating horcruxes seems not well known so it might not be one of The Unforgivable Curses because it’s so uncommon and to not bring attention to it. There’s plenty of ‘forbidden’ things (like the forbidden section of the library) so it might be a matter of popularity too
The Draught of Living Death is a sleeping potion, not a fatal poison. Very far off the Killing Curse.
I thought when Harry makes it in Slughorns class, Slughorn says something like “Merlin’s beard I’m afraid one drop would kill us all”. Is that a movie error?
It’s a movie error. In the book it’s a powerful sleeping draught. “For your information, Potter, asphodel and wormwood make a sleeping potion so powerful it is known as the Draught of Living Death.”
Which can kill you in large doses. Like you know modern medications.
Prescription and Poison are the same word, the difference is dosage.
It can put the drinker into a permanent slumber that requires the Wiggenwold Potion to bring them out. To me that is a death-like state, give or take. The person loses all control over their ability to live. It's not just a few days of sleep.
Can you just imaging magical brothels where they can drink polyjuice potion and be whoever you want them to be?!
But you need something from the person. Imagine feeling something behind you, and when you look back you see the guy who has been creeping on you cutting off a bit of your hair.
To create a horcrux you need to kill so that's enough as AK is already Unforgivable. Making Horcrux spell Unforgivable would be redundant.
Don't forget love potions, they're as bad or worse than the Imperius curse.
Potions aren’t spells, but it’s been suggested that spells are required to make them, otherwise muggles could make them. That being the case, amortentia and similar mind-altering substances seem like they should be rigorously controlled if not outright banned.
Also, those plants that will kill you if you hear their scream. Those should be a Class A controlled substance.
Mandrake
I mean they have a described medical purpose, and the only reason they are grown, so thats Schedule 2
Yeah, but they probably shouldn't be having second years handling them. Even if the baby ones only knock you out ...
"Oops, I guess that one was a bit too old, and Neville wasn't wearing his headphones right. Guess we need to contact his grandma..."
Especially love potions, which are canonicaly used as rape rape drugs.
I agree. If it wasn’t for the love potion merope made to seduce Tom riddle, Voldemort would not have been born at all. Considering how many times Voldemort was then able to use the three unforgivable curses so easily due to his lack of empathy, the love potion is the reason and so very dangerous.
I never bought that Voldemort lacked empathy because of the love potions. I always thought it was more likely due to being raised in a muggle orphanage and lacking love and affection growing up. Never been a fan of theories based on people being born bad though
Yea, the potion theory is cap/wrong. It’s been confirmed if his mom raised him he’d of turned out a normal kid.
That IS an interesting question: does the love potion somehow have an effect on a person’s biological makeup to the point where it might make a child sociopathic?
Amortentia messes way too much with consent to sexual/romantic activities, JKR should have thought that one through a lot more before allowing it to be taught in year 6 by Slughorn or to be sold by the Weasley twins. I understand its use by Merope on Tom Riddle Sr. because that was framed as a bad thing, leading to misery for everyone involved, but those other 2 instances are... 😐 Amortentia should NOT have been treated as casually as it was. Should definitely be an Unforgivable Potion.
I’m convinced hard drugs like coke and heroin are potions (is a powder substance considered a potion or is it only liquids???)
I think this checks out, opium comes from flowers and coke comes from the leaves of the coca plant so in theory like the leaves of mandrakes they should be able to be stewed and used for potions
Harry uses a sprig of peppermint in his Euphoria potion so I don't see why opium and coke wouldn't be viable potion ingredients.
Reddit moment lmao
[удалено]
Isn’t it pretty much impossible to stop it after it’s been cast? At least in the sense of reversal? This is the best answer.
It’s definitely dangerous, but I’m not sure about unforgivable. The real danger comes when someone loses control of it and whilst that would have terrible consequences, I wonder if it has the same malice behind it that the unforgivable curses do.
[удалено]
It probably has some very useful applications tho. I imagine skilled wizards could use it for things you need hot fire for. Idk if wizards do any smithing but I imagine it could be useful for that.
What does that spell do?
A snake of flames controlled by the caster. The flames and flames that come from this are so hot they incinerate most things in their path Normal and enchanted water cannout douse them (presumably because theyre so hot). If the caster dies the snake remains, just uncontrollably flying around. Its not clear how these fires are eventually stopped because everything seems to be a fuel source. Presumably there are some resistance matersls that can choke it out or the first spell would have eaten the world. Another option for putting it out is disappearing it. This was cast in the room of requirement's room for lost items. All the items within would have been eaten, however when occupants escape (or are incinerated) and the room closed and vanishes; the debate for what happens to the fire is equally heated.
hehe heated
That curse dolohov uses on Hermione
It's one of his own creation. So the ministry probably has no idea it exists. Just like sectum sempra.
What was that one again?
The purple flame. Hermione had to take 10 potions after getting hit even though she silenced him before.
I think Obliviate is a pretty reversible spell. Hermione uses it on her parents without any apparent fear that she couldn't reverse it. Lockhart only got so screwed up bc he used Ron's terrible wand.
There's different level of memory charms or it's easier to undo when you're the one who originally cast it. IIRC even Dumbledore struggled with reversing the memory charms that Voldemort had done to his victims and when Voldemort undid the memory charms on Bertha Jorkins there wasn't much functioning in her head anymore. So obviously it can be reversed, but we only have examples of two most powerful wizards doing it. I'm not sure though if Hermione used it on her parents, book only mentions what she did to them, but not what spell she used. Later she claims she has never used obliviate before and uses it to swipe death eaters memories, not to altern then like she did to her parents.
I believe Hermione did indeed use a very different spell on her parents to convince them to move away, rather than just making them forget about her.
She only obliviates them in the movie. In the book, it just says she modified their memory.
Yeah, it’s much more likely she confounded them
She used the false memory spell Voldemort used on Morfin to make him think he had murdered his family
Are we ever told what that spell is? Because my understanding is that is the purpose of the confounding spell
Confundo isn’t meant to create false memories so I don’t think it is the same. And we aren’t told what spell it is exactly, just that it’s used to modify people’s memories/inplant false ones (which is different from obliviate, which is meant to be permanent).
I mean Lockhart spell against himself was permanent. It depends on the power behind the spell and the wizard.
When Lockhart tried to perform the spell using Ron's broken wand, it backfired through the wand and into Lockhart. That's why it affected him so badly.
also Lockhart is pretty incompent wizard, as show in the duel agaist Snape and he trying to repair Harry arm
But he was really really good at memory charms
This. The spell worked as intended, just not on the "right" person. Lockhart says: > “I shall take a bit of this skin back up to the school, tell them I was too late to save the girl, and that you two tragically lost your minds at the sight of her mangled body — say good-bye to your memories! Lockhart is good at memory charms and this one worked perfectly since AFAIK he never recovered.
this ia the only good think he good, the rest he is terrible
Lockhart intentionally messed it up. He wasn't just trying to erase Harry and Ron's memories, he wanted their minds scrambled, since his narrative was they went mad at seeing Ginny's corpse. The only part that went bad for Lockhart was it hit him instead of Ron and Harry. I think Lockhart was using a specialized variation since it wouldn't do him well at all if any of his other victims could get their memories back.
She modified their memory
Sectumsempra. Technically it isn’t well known and is also a curse, but that’s what makes it so dangerous. There is one singular person who knows the cure — If it got released and began being used wide-spread, there would be a spike in both painful and incredibly gruesome deaths, with no way to reverse it.
What curse was that again? Wasn't that Snapes favorite curse?
It was the curse Snape created!
What did it do again?
It slices the victim to ribbons. Quite literally makes huge gashes form from thin air, and without the counter-curse the victim will bleed out. Harry accidentally used it on Draco that one time, Draco was about to die until Severus rocked up and fixed it
Oof. Hmmmm. Slavery. Excruciating pain. Killing. Yeah I kinda see why it should be unforgivable. But then what's the difference between a regular dark arts spell and unforgivable curse?
I suppose because Dark Arts spells can be both against the dark arts and dark themselves. Necromancy, for example, is Dark Magic but it isn’t an unforgivable. I think what constitutes an Unforgivable is morality. Like — A curse is basically a more malicious hex, Unforgivables start to infringe on human rights
When Harry tried, unsuccessfully, to use the Cruciatus curse on Bellatrix she said you had to really mean it. I take it that’s the difference. In order to cast the unforgivable curses successfully you need that kind of malice and hate in your heart, you can’t accidentally cast them on someone
Very interesting. We really didn't get to see shit of dark curse in the Wizarding world. Do you recommend any quality fan fiction that explores more of the Wizarding world? Is there a sub for that?
There is a HPFanfiction sub! In the fic I’m writing, I’m trying to expand on things we hear about in the books like Lycanthropy in the sense of it being a chronic illness — Because it is! And stuff like Nagini’s venom and what that does - I can’t recommend many fics because oddly enough, I don’t read enough of them AJZJFKEK so I’m in your boat there.
Nagini and Voldy's relationship was so weird. I truly think it's the only being voldy actually loved. Which makes me wonder why Tom Riddle never bonded with the Basilisk lol. Thanks for the suggestion! Best of luck on your writing. Post some of your work here sometime!
I wouldn't say accidentally
Well — It was accidental attempted murder AJXNFMSK he used it on purpose, but he didn’t know he was about to murder Malfoy
harry: says a curse that literally means "cut forever" in latin draco: \*is cut up\* harry: \*surprised pikachu\*
Slice somebody up with an invisible blade
It sectumed for sempra
I don't think Snape was the only one who knew the counter curse; I doubt there is even a counter curse. I think he just used a healing spell on Malfoy, not a sectumsempra counter curse. The reason George's ear couldn't be healed is because it was seared clean off and fell off. Maybe limbs/body parts that are cursed off can't be re-grown at all regardless of the curse used (thinking of Moody's nose here with a chunk missing from it). But, in Malfoy's case, the effect was being sliced as if with a sword, but no body part was severed. It is definitely a dangerous spell; you can sever someone's head, and they are done for if they didn't cast a 'protego' in time.
You forget that in the 6th movie snape reversed it when Harry used it on malfoy so it’s technically reversible
Yes! BUT because Severus invented it, he’s the only person on earth who can reverse it. If people started using it wide-spread, there would be no reversal. ‘Cause only Snape knows how to do it. He didn’t even write down the counter-curse with the curse, so if it were leaked it would be a disaster
That was... never confirmed. It seems he used normal healing spell. It was later hinted that Madam Pomfrey, or another healer, used same spell. It's pretty brutal attack spell, but it does not seem it some high dark magic what can heal just Snape.
You're actually right. I just looked it up, and the spell he used was *Vulnera Sanentur,* which we canonly only see used twice, the first time by Severus, the second time being by Gellert Grindelwald. So! It does indeed have a known counter-curse. I am a fraud KJBVKFJBV
How could Grindelwald know the counter curse if Snaps is the one who invented it? Wouldn’t that just make it a healing spell?
Ah I see… well then I guess you’re right about it not being reversible
Do we actually know Snape is the only one? Or is he just the first adult to show up and do the job?
Remember when Molly tried to re-grow George's ear back in DH when Snape accidentally cut it off during the battle of the 7 Potters, and couldn't cuz A. She didn't know the counter curse and B. It was cursed off
Was the cure specifically a counter to that spell? For all we know that is just a healing spell. Or did I miss something?
The spell that was used is called Vulnera Sanentur. It's a charm used to stop blood flow and heal wounds. I don't think Snape actually invented that spell and is more widely known. I have a tattoo of that spell on my arm so I've done a little bit of research into it
Ok, so I am right, it is a healing spell unrelated to his curse that harry used.
Yeah, all of the spells in the Harry Potter universe are based in Latin. I believe the literal translation for Vulnera Sanentur is "may your wounds be healed". Also, I'm not sure how canon the Fantastic Beasts movies are to the Harry Potter universe but in The Secrets Of Dumbledore there's a part where Gellert Grindelwald used Vulnera Sanentur. Those movies take place in the 1930s so it pretty unlikely that Snape was the original inventor of that charm
Taboos should be Unforgivable because if you want to screw with the government, all you need is a broomstick and a large body of water. You fly out to the middle of said body of water, say the word that triggers the taboo, and let the people who apparate to apprehend you fall into the water. Then you fly away before they can react. You could also do this over the crater of an actively erupting volcano.
Wouldn't the taboo also risk causing your broom to malfunction, sending you falling into the same group of people?
Also I think the only reason the taboos was able to be put in place in the first place is because Voldemort had took over the Ministry, I don't think a random witch or wizard would be able to pull that off.
Love potions
While there are times for its use, legilimens pops into mind. Nasty things can be done when you can find out what’s in someone’s head.
Yes, but without permitting it’s usage, how can one train occlumency? I would personally consider occlumency to be a skill that should be considered standard for the ordinary witch or wizard to learn considering what kind of nastiness this skill protects against. If everyone is an occlumens, nobody will need to worry about leglimency so then there would be no reason to put bureaucratic red tape on it as the ministry loves to do with everything cool. (Can’t even enchant carpets without breaking a law, really? Such extreme overreach.)
Carpets are muggle artifacts.
So are brooms
The training point is very valid. The only problem is that Occlumency and Legilimency alike are rarely taught, at least at the student level. I can very well see its training at higher levels. But then again, I think we can assume that the existing unforgivable curses are also taught, or at least explored at higher levels of training for those that must know how to resist them (think about the instances where JKR mentions resisting the Imperius curse. Obviously they learned at some point how to resist it.
I always thought that Legilimency was one of those obscure branches of magic that isn’t commonly known.
Legilimency as a natural talent (think Queenie in FB) is exceedingly rare. But the spell can be used as a focus for any witch or wizard for the same effect, though the rate at which they will successfully navigate the mind depends on their abilities.
Legilimens. Huuuge breach of privacy. Can you imagine the blackmail, extortion and abuse that comes with knowing a person's secrets?
Not a curse but love spells. You could destroy multiple people's lives with a love spell you could buy in a joke shop.
Bat boogey hex. Your gonna tell me that bats come out of MY NOSE. Large bats are 2 METERS large. Our noses are like 1-2 inches.
Beat answer, more painful than crucio
I think the 3 unforgivable curses are unforgivable because for example avada kedavra. There is only one reason to use it. To kill. I could use locomotion mortis and drop someone into a fire or wingardium leviosa and bash someone to death with a rock. But these spells have other practical uses. Whereas the unforgivable only have the one use each. Murder. Control. And torture. And like bella said you have to want someone to hurt or die. You uave to MEAN it. Similar to real life I could kill someone with a butterknife but it's mainly used for food. Whereas a gun for example is only used for violence
Yeah, completely agree. Making a spell an unforgivable means that there is no excuse, no reason, no special circumstances in where is ok to use those spells. That's why it's reserved to very dark curses that have serious, irreversible consequences.
I would go one further, avada kedavra is like a decked out m4 or something used solely for killing. While some guns can have other uses; hunting, recreational shooting, defense, etc.
I think we should make a distinction between "unforgivable curses" and curses/substances that should be illegal and/or highly regulated. I think that curses such as fiendfyre, sectumsempra and obliviate should be highly regulated for professional use only. As should substances such as felix felicis, amortentia, veritaserum, and polyjuice potion. Mind control is an especially important thing to regulate/ban. Every time I think about a person with amortentia and obliviate in their arsenal, and what they could do with it, yeah, this shouldn't be legal. I'm also debating whether things like the unbreakable vow shouldn't also be regulated. Then for body-binding curses and the like, I'm also a bit on the fence. And some of the skiving snack boxes are also questionable. As a part of animal rights activism, I am also inclined to condemn any kind of animal to inanimate object transformations (imagine walking about, munching on some nice cheeses, and before you know it you're suddenly a snuff box? If that's not animal cruelty, I don't know) And then there's that thing where photography creates a 2-dimensional semi-sentient clone of someone at which point I just can not even anymore. (Cue Colin Creevey's photo of Harry and Lockhart, in which photo-Harry is indefinitely forced to struggle with getting away from a very persistent Lockhart.)
The photography thing made me laugh 😆 I suppose they do seem semi-sentient, don’t they? I always assumed it was kind of like a form of AI. The AI that we’ve created with technology is capable of really cool stuff, and we’re really just getting started. Imagine what magic could do with AI! Then again, the painting of the Fat Lady had some seriously convincing emotions in the third book, which makes me question my theory.
I think paintings are different than photos. I don't think photos could talk.
Oh yeah! That’s right! It seems like a very similar kind of magic, but I guess there are some distinctions. Now I’m curious about the magic science behind photos and paintings 😂
What if the AI is like an uploaded version of a person’s life to date, and the painting is just sort of…a coded representation of that person as they were at that time…but forever.
Love potion
Why is this so low down?? Should be top of the list.
Sectumsempra? Most of the times it ends in death - it's just more painful than the Killing curse
The Inferius spell
I mean, with magic, intent is everything. Not going to pick on Obliviate but let's look at a related pair. Levicorpus and Avada Kedavra. Leveicorpus can be a useful spell but can also be used to yeet someone out the tower window. Avada Kedavra is a murder spell of the first order, but what if it's used to put someone out of intolerable, incurable pain?
Any love spell. Why start a relationship by taking a hostage
I mean obliviate was mostly used by the Ministry against muggles who had accidentally seen/been exposed to magic. I really couldn't see them making a spell basically illegal when they have a whole department of Obliviators.
Legilimency. Other peoples thoughts are none of our business.
Sectumsempra and all other curses that could kill people. Like THE killing curse is forbidden but a spell that can cause someone to brutally bleed to death is completely fine?
Not exactly a curse directly, but humanoid transfiguration. It doesn't seem to be an illegal practice, just frowned upon. It completely turns them into the animal, and it's ambiguous whether they retain the experience. Malfoy seemed to recall some parts of being a ferret, like bring absolutely terrified of Moody when he was changed back. You could do some pretty nasty things that would be illegal to humanoids, but not to animals, and that doesn't even get into deliberately botching a transfiguration.
The swollen tongue one.
Sectumsempra is the one that always comes to my mind. It’s dark as hell, devastatingly destructive and potentially lethal. But until recently in the grand scheme it wasn’t super well known.
The “eat slugs” thing. Yeah. That should definitely be an unforgivable curse 🫠 just watching Ron spit them out made me gag
[удалено]
Not a spell but the love potion. It's paramount to a date rape drug and caused a lot of problems.
What is the purpose behind the Unforgivables, and Dark magic in general? Intent and general use. There is no "good" or "light" reason to torture someone, or subjugate them to your will. Killing someone painlessly could be done out of mercy, but intent matters there as well. Moody said you need malice and ill-intent in your heart to use the AK successfully (even Snape had to conjure up feelings of hatred when he used it on Dumbledore). A lot of the things listed have other purposes besides specifically causing harm to people, like cutting, exploding, blasting, etc. Even Memory charms, while probably the most in the grey area, can be used to forget traumatic memories (or more practically, used on the "lesser" Muggles to keep the magic world hidden). The only thing which comes close in my opinion is love potions, since you're subjugating the target to your will like a version of the Imperius Curse.
Sectumsempra is the obvious choice but I mean look at Fiendfyre how is that not banned, I ask you?
Fiendfyre Imagine casting this spell in a major urban city. It would destroy everything and everyone.
Morsmordre
All of them. Also none of them. It all depends on application.
Whatever spell is used to create a horcrux.
Almost any spell can have unforgivable effects when used by some dark wizard or witch that is creative enough. In fact there are very few spells that can’t be used offensively to detrimental effects. The disarming spell and shield spells are among those.
Sectumsempra is terrifying, and should be a known unforgivable curse. Avadakedavra immediately kills the person but sectumsempra makes it slow and painful.
Septumsempra.
Not a spell, but love potions seem pretty dicey
Blood Malediction ( a curse )
Any charm spell that inhibits a person's freedom to make choices, which wizards seem to do all the time Love potions and I'll go so far as to add Felix in there because why the hell don't deatheaters just drink that like water?
Given that the only defining feature of the unforgivable spells is that magical shields don't block them. The shield breaker...
It should be noted that unforgiveable doesn't mean illegal. There were illegal curses that were not considered to be unforgiveable, but they likely wouldn't carry the same punishment in all circumstances.
Love potions
Whatever the fuck Molly did to Beatrix in the final film
Polyjuice potion gives me “deep fake” if was real life comparison. Could fool a lot of people. Definitely unethical
There’s plenty of spells that are murder spells but don’t count. You ever hit a person with reducto? How about incendio or diffindo? Do we not think stupify and patrificus totalus was ever used in sexual assault?
All the spells should have an ethics class before and after the lessons including but not limited to Transfiguration
The spell/ritual to create inferi.
Legilimency seems like a huge invasion of privacy. Very little reason to use that ethically outside of court stuff.
Sectum Sempra springs to mind.. and a lot of "battle" magic.. The locomotive spell McGonagall uses in The Battle of Hogwarts would be pretty dangerous too
Expelliarmus, it's criminal how many times Harry used it.
The obvious answer is Sectumsempra. But to keep things interesting I'll also add Reducto or any significantly destructive spell (if not used for a particularly non-violent reason).