So isn't the whole point of the killing curse that you can't perform it without deep malice? Because if you're telling me that killing someone with Avada Kedavra is somehow worse than killing somebody with incindio or confringo or sectum sempra or that slug curse Ron did in the second movie, you're out of your goddamn mind. In fact, it's quantifiably the most human form of execution ever conceived. Lethal injection is less humane by leaps and bounds.
I thought the problem was that you have to REALLY want it bad. Like, you have to get hard when you do it. But then how can Snape do it? Is JK Rowling just a giant fucking fraud?
those movies are shit. you should read the books in elementary school and never watch the movies
The more you think of the logic in that franchise, the worse it gets
The reason it's bad is because you have to want to do it and it serves no purpose ever beyond killing someone.
Confringo is a bit sussy but realistically has other uses.
Its a combo of and
The reason its a forbidden spell is because it only serves one purpose - killing. Theres no self-defense, disarming, or non-lethal aspect about it, just point and kill. Like anon said you have to be powerful enough to cast it, which also requires strong intent to use the spell. Snape was powerful enough and did want to kill dumbledore (but unbeknownst to Voldi this was part of the plan).
No, you have to be powerful enough for it to have the desired effect. Mad Eye Moody says it straight - the entire class could point their wands and cast the spell, and MAYBE he'd get a nosebleed. It requires both talent AND will.
Isn't it easier to use a gun?
yes. by a lot
Why didnt the wizards just shoot voldemort!
"No!"
avada kedavra was a metaphor for guns.
No it's not!
Avada Kedavra is a metaphor for eating too much Sauerkraut
>Green Beam out your Ass!
But guns exist in Harry Potter. Honestly the more you think about the retarded divide between wizards and muggles the worse it gets.
JK wanted to make a full on alien wizarding world but keep it relatable for her teenage readers.
So you end up with a lot of shit that just doesn't line up in any sensible way. Like the wizards being grey skins secretly mind wiping government officials while still not know how to wear a suit.
I wrote a fanfic as a kid about a muggle special forces team invading hogwarts and killing all the dirty wizards.
I think the guy who shot up Dunblane would have taken a lot longer if he had recite a chant every time he killed a kid
iirc the idea is that you 100% have to be convinced of killing the person you're firing at, snape killing dumbledore makes sense considering the stakes, its meant to show his determination against his conscience
>iirc the idea is that you 100% have to be convinced of killing the person you're firing at
I feel like there are many instances that doing so would be justifiable. For instance, had James Potter done it when Voldemort got into his house, should that be considered "unforgivable"?
its probably unforgivable de jure because its really powerful, a kind of law that attempts to prevent the usage of the curse because its too powerful or something
im sure its de facto forgivable, ie james potter probably would have gotten away with it
It's unclear. Generally Aurors are forbidden to kill unless there is no other way. But this hasn't always been the case. For example, this rule was lifted during the first war against Voldemort, with only Moody continuing to follow it. But there are ways to kill with love in this universe and it's sketchy and not really thought out. Molly Weasley kills Bellatrix in this manner. The curse she uses isn't really named, but the fandom seems to think it has something to do with the sort of ancient magic that lives at the peripheries of the canon when JKR doesn't feel like explaining something adequately. They actually vaguely canonize this in Hogwarts Legacy, where the main character does the "make the other guy pop like a balloon" spell from the movie.
>had James Potter done it
James Potter is a loser gay who only managed to shart his pants before ragdolling on a staircase, leaving his wife to protect their child. Look at this potato nose gay, he looks like a balding bag of dried ass skin, at age 21
>here’s that 21 year old I was telling you about
>seething slithercuck detected
>James Potter is a loser gay
>Had a loving wife and child by 21
And what the fuck have you accomplished by that age anon? You're complaining about harry fucking potter on /misc/. You don't have any ground to stand on to call anyone a loser gay unless you're looking in god damn mirror you moron.
>married at age 19 and got teen pregnant like chav trash
wow
if he's so cool why is so dead?
for his legendary son to realize the prophecy, slithercuck
>british genes
I know americans are like this, but the magical world has a very good judicial system and you aren't justifiable on doing so
>Short trials with little evidence
>No lawyers
>Straight to the nastiest place ever
>B-b-b-but I HAD to kill them they were in my house!!!!
Grindelwald was Voldemort levels of power WITH the elder wand and he rot in Azkaban, there's no reason to believe Voldemort would escape or something
>not allowed to kill a person that has broken into your home
Pussies. Richard Ramirez types must fucking love it there. Imagine actually telling someone they have to wait and see if the intruder wants to rape and murder you or simply take your telly. Lmao.
>if you kill a mass murderer you are just as bad!
How childish one's mind must be to harbor such a conviction.
Oi you goi loinces for dat spel?
You have to remember HP was written by a britcuck.
Lethal force from a civilian is never acceptable, not even in self defence.
Snape is a lonely, miserable gay who has never had sex in his life. It shouldn't be hard for him to conjure enough hatred to make it work, even if he didn't hate Dumbledore specifically. All he has to do is remember that his life will either end at Voldemort's hand in a few weeks or he will be grading potions essays for the rest of his miserable life. Easy peasy
Snape did hate Dumbledore for forcing him to do it.
He also hated him for abusing snakeshits for his entire career
>So isn't the whole point of the killing curse that you can't perform it without deep malice?
You have to actually want to kill the person.
And you have to be strong enough to cast the spell.
it's green retard
how did you miss the color coding on good and bad
The green lasers in star wars are bad and the red lasers are good. Unless we're talking about lightsabers, in which the opposite is true, but suck my ass
JK is a hack of a writer and while the whole killing curse this is kinda interesting for the whole the babies survives and no one else ever did angle it really makes the universe feel lazy as a whole if you have this magical 1 shot spell that can kill anyone but most people don't use it because uhhhhh
>the whole the babies survives and no one else ever did angle it
You could have achieved this with any sort of evil killing spell. My problem with Avada Kedavra is that it's just boring. I also feel like Voldemort should be sadistic enough to not use it all the time, but it's his favorite spell for some reason
I think it's supposed to be worse than any other spell because it can't be blocked or countered while spells like incindio could. Like other anons said the casting of the spell could also have to do more with conviction to kill rather than malice, but I'm not really sure.
Ultimately, Rowling just REALLY sucks at deeper world building. We already know that souls are canonically implied to exist and can be damaged, as demonstrated by Voldemort's horcruxes. The obvious play to make the unforgivable curses less appealing to the heroic characters would have been to establish that they can be harmful to the soul. That provides adequate justification for good characters to be adverse to using them, while also allowing dark wizards with no reservations about the state of their soul to continue using them indiscriminately.
Anon, the entire point of the horcruxes was that KILLING does irreparable damage to your own soul, so of course the KILLING CURSE will do the same. JK just didn't spoonfeed it like you seem to need.
>without deep malice
Without intent.
The problem with that is that I really don't understand what makes it "evil" then. I think the big problem with the way Rowling approaches dark magic is that there isn't enough of a cost. I feel like if the killing curse is meant to be as taboo as it is, there should be some reason for it. Like, you need to commit to being an evil person in some way in order to make it work, or else it just falls flat for the reason OP pointed out. If it's simply a matter of intent, you can intend to kill someone for a noble or otherwise acceptable reason. And honestly, if the alternative is to kill the person in a painful and inhumane way, then that's shitty and sadistic for no reason. If I kill someone in self defense with Avada Kedavra, does that make me a worse person than if I did it painfully with a baseball bat? Why?
There are tools to defend yourself without using Avada Kedavra. When you use the killing curse you just want that person dead for malicious intent
> I thought the problem was that you have to REALLY want it bad. Like, you have to get hard when you do it. But then how can Snape do it?
He wants revenge for Lily and was willing to kill to keep his cover , simple as
this. Snape is the biggest chad in the whole series, even though he is obviously virgin coded. The lengths and risks he took are impressive
He hated that fag Dumbledore for HOWEVERing Slytherin that one year
it's unblockable (except for statues and furniture and trees and pillars and other, less difficult spells), so in terms of combat it's the most efficient killing spell so long as you're powerful and butthurt enough to pull it off.
You can block it using a suit of armor unless you are wearing it
I thought the "REALLY wanting it" thing was more to do with the Crucio curse, the torture/pain curse. Like you have to WANT to hurt that person.
Avada Kadavra or whatever, it just kills no matter what. That was how I understood it anyway.
Slytherins as Pixar characters; inspired by past thread
It won't make Snape look badass, he always look like a wimp
Pixar Draco at least looks like a villain
Make Draco a girl. For science.
I tried. She became a bobblehead e-boi; I can rebake.
I'd still fuck it.
Please wait till your pureblood bride is of marrying age
Draco looks like he is up to something mean
That's pretty out of character for him
Like he looks like the main villain instead of just a bully
Maybe he has stolen Hagrid's umbrella
Oh Lawd he coming
Hagrid if he Clash of Clans.
He is definitely a good disciplinarian here
Alright this is the second last one
Little Luna
I draw as well fren, I just like to play with AI
stop shitting up the thread with this garbage
Kay its the last one I was baking anyway. Hope the other anons got their requests
Tom Riddle
Who else should I AI
Colin Creevey
Kay, need to figure out the prompt; here's Luna Lovegood meanwhile
Not happy with it, I am baking a new guy. Any other requests
Helena Carter looking girl. He has a cute based wife
Buckbeak the hippogriff
Derp result; I am rebaking
Still a bit too 2000s vidya game for my tastes but better
Last attempt
They're all pretty decent. Do Madeye Moody
>Moody
So much time to bake and such a disappointment tesk, tesk
I'll try again
Last one. I think Hagrid and Luna gives the best results
Pansy Parkinson
Pansy was a good girl that didn't do nothing; poor girl was framed!
A e-boi version to keep itty bitty Draco company
Voldemort but as the trolley witch
I tried and got a boy scout sweet-salesman Tom
deep intent
gay
also he's pretty mad a ol' d-dore in the moment.
Why? Because of the rapes?
no the rapes were the only upside
MUDBLOOD
She cute
Isnt the reason its unforgivable is because it steals your soul, not simply because it kills you?
No, you’re thinking of Dementors, which are canonically the dumbest thin JK Rowling ever wrote. Not their existence in and of themselves, but that the “good guys” would ever think this was an acceptable form of punishment. Even Dumbledore only disapproves of them insofar as he realizes they will fight for Voldemort. In a world where we can prove souls are a thing, destroying a person’s soul should be the most heinous possible crime, but they’re perfectly okay with it for uppity crooks.
>In a world where we can prove souls are a thing, destroying a person’s soul should be the most heinous possible crime
Why? There is no God in Harry Potter and thus no binding, objective morality.
They're (somehow) Christian. They celebrate Christmas
Which is hilarious given that the none of Christ's miracles would be impressive
Rising from the dead is a pretty good trick.
Not true. Jesus resurrected people. Wizards can't do that. He also healed blindness, which for some reason seems difficult for wizards
You can also eat food conjured by Jesus. Wizard's cannot conjure food.
He also multiplied food, which they can technically do but only poorly and with exponentially diminishing returns
>what are the deathly hollows
why discuss franchises youre completely ignorant about?
The stone doesn't work you retard, anyone you try to bring back comes back as a shade without a real body and quickly turn restless and distraught at being drawn from the afterlife. Death made it as a fuck you to the brother
>what are the deathly hollows
The cloak of invisibility, the elder wand and the resurrection stone. But that last one evidently doesn't do what you think it does. In fact, I'm perplexed as to how you can even make that reference without knowing that it doesn't actually resurrect people fully. That is explained at the exact same time the concept is introduced. Did you get to the part where Hermione is telling the story of the three brothers and go, "AHA! I NOW FULLY UNDERSTAND THIS MOVIE AND WILL HEREBY EXIT THE THEATER FOREVERMORE" the moment she said "resurrection stone"? That's the only way you could conceivably have enough knowledge to recognize what the Hallows are yet still not know what they do.
True resurrection is impossible for wizards, even the deathly hallow stone is a fake mockery that doesn't work, that alone makes Christ more powerful than magic.
Also he makes food out of nothing which is also impossible for magic which needs the raw materials to make anything available
To be fair, it's impossible to say whether Christ conjured the food out of thin air or simply multiplied it. Wizards can do that, but poorly.
Are you trolling? I hope you're trolling.
>youre a wizard jesus
was that so hard to think up? besides yule was a long established holiday before christianity and even if it wasnt its still a cultural holiday for bongs. theres literally no reason they wouldn't celebrate it. remember this was a pre woke world before "happy holidays"
>There is no God in Harry Potter and thus no binding, objective morality.
Cool, just like real life!
no im thinking of goblet for fire when the souls of all the people voldemort killed come out and how you never see a ghost who was killed by the killing curse
Those aren’t their souls. I don’t know if they explain it in the movie, but in the book Dumbledore has a whole speech about priori incantatum and how the wand will play back a sort of echo of the last people killed. But they aren’t the actual souls themselves
>In a world where we can prove souls are a thing, destroying a person’s soul should be the most heinous possible crime, but they’re perfectly okay with it for uppity crooks.
No, that's inline with classic Anglo culture.
>"it would be immoral to keep someone in gaol for more than a week or two, so let's just hang them until dead, instead"
the point is that the spell is specifically for killing and only bad people can use the spell.
Jesus can levitate, set himself on fire and shoot swords out of his mouth. Harry Potter can't do that.
Wizards fear him 🙂
a simple avadakedavra would kill issou
>accio nuke
>bombarda
>protego
It's crucio that needs the malice, Barty Crouch Jr just said the students' power levels aren't high enough to perform it on him
mine is. I am extremely powerful. I could have done it no clap
>9 Now for some time a man named Simon had practiced sorcery in the city and amazed all the people of Samaria. He boasted that he was someone great, 10 and all the people, both high and low, gave him their attention and exclaimed, “This man is rightly called the Great Power of God.” 11 They followed him because he had amazed them for a long time with his sorcery. 12 But when they believed Philip as he proclaimed the good news of the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. 13 Simon himself believed and was baptized. And he followed Philip everywhere, astonished by the great signs and miracles he saw.
Wizards BTFO.
Yeah, man. I don't know. Simon Magus seems to have butthurt early Christians in a way that seems pretty based. Gnostics love him
Simon Magus and the Apostle Paul might be the same historical person. I don't feel like explaining it, look it up.
>Gnostics love him
This alone is proof he was probably a giant gay.
Gnostics love Paul as well.
I know a lot of people are anti-Paul. Haven't made up my mind yet.
Snape didn't kill him with that curse.
In the books Dumbledore's body binding curse on Harry only disappears when he hits the ground.
Snape basically just pushed Dumbledore off the tower.
He should have used that curse that makes you throw up your insides, now that would have been a way to go.
What about the spell Pettigrew used that blew up like a whole city block and killed a bunch of aurors and muggles? One which presumably required no malice and which we never see or hear of again? (To my recollection at least)
i hate hate hate hate when these fights are nothing more than wand gun flicking
use different spells, yell them out goddamnit
I think the biggest flaw/mistake in harry potter is exactly what you said, making the killing curse so easy to perform. It would have been much better if only truly skilled but evil people could use it, and the rest of the characters had to come up with other spells to fight.
Goyle and Crabbe running around avada kedavra-ing was really dumb
>Do you wanna play anon?
>without deep malice
I thought it wasn't about malice per se, but that you had to really MEAN it, you had to genuinely want to end someone's life and couldn't half ass it. A mercy killing knowing that the alternative would be much, much worse could absolutely make AK work even if you had no malice for the person at all. That's also what makes it unforgivable, because if you successfully cast it it removes all plausible deniability about your intention. You wanted to kill someone, there's no possibility it was an accident.
Presumably Snape has enough malice built up from a lifetime of being a cuck that he can channel it into killing as needed.
It was premeditated, he could have practiced using the curse without hating Dumbledore, using hateful thoughts. He's a master of legilimency. It's also not hard to concieve that a really talented wizard would be more flexible in using spells compared to your average wizard who would need strong emotions to cast it