*Spoiler* - Cruciatus

[Ju-DedoH]

two questions :
- in the book, trustworthy people say that umbridge could not be a death eater, but she nearly does or does (can't quite remember) a cruciatus curse ... what do you think ?
- and harry does one ! what about that ? do you think doing such a spell marks/alters the caster in some way ?
thx for your answers

[Scellanis]

she nearly does one, she also sent those dementors after harry and that quill.....yeah, i had the idea she could be a death eater but she could also be just a very evil witch who isnt a death eater....i mean there dont appear to be all that many death eaters and surely theres more evil wizards and witches than voldemort was counting death eaters.....

[Scellanis]

oh and i was gonna say, i dont think it does....but your character affects the efficiency of the spell....

bellatrix told harry he had to actually mean it for the spell to cause her prolonged serious pain but he didnt really so it only caused her a sudden spasm of sharp pain instead.....

so he wont be able to perform the spell properly (like death eaters do) unless he alters his character......no doubt the other curses need that too....probably need a stronger more controlled and mature character....like, i bet dumbledore, moody and other aurors and possibly lupin and sirius could do it....bet arthur couldnt though, he doesnt strike me as the type of person who could

[Ju-DedoH]

quite right you are, and quite tired i am tonight, so we can discuss it another time, maybe tomorrow

[Sacred Guardian]

yeah, there has to be feeling behind it, i don't think it matters who it is, but i think it matters how and why the curse-er is performing it

[Devinci]

I don't think it matters why the person is doing it...I just think it matters how strong the emotions behind it are.

[June]

Agree with the above reasonings. The Cruciatus curse is an unforgiveable curse, but it doesn't mean that other wizards besides the Death Eaters couldn't do it. It has more to do with the intentions and power behind it, I should think. Most wizards don't do such curses because it's illegal... I remember the fake Professor Moody once saying before that anyone caught doing such unforgiveable curses face a lifetime in Azkaban. Still, remember that during the first war, Barty Crouch gave the aurors tremendous powers to kill the Death Eaters, and perhaps that meant the legalisation of the unforgiveable curses for that period.

So, for Umbridge, if she thinks what she's doing is right, and she's sadistic enough to do it, it just means that she was willing to use extreme means for an end, and does not imply she's a Death Eater. That's my opinion anyway.

[Sacred Guardian]

that is true, crouch did authorize that power, and the only way i'm aware of to kill someone in the wizarding world in a quick way is avanda kedavra

[Ju-DedoH]

what about the fact that she sent dementors on harry ! hope she won't get away with that ...
and the thing i was scared about with the cruciatus curse, was if using it the first time kind of put you on the "dark side" ?

[bobafett_12]

i agree with June on this matter, the intentions and feeling are what make the difference. i dont think that he could really pull off an effective unforgivable curse unless he was feeling some really intensive, sadistic rage.

[Ju-DedoH]

i agree but the mere fact to try to do the curse seems as unforgivable as beeing able to do it properly in a way.

[hpfan4life]

there's alot to be considered in the situation of harry and the the unforgivable curse...
first of all, i don't neccessarily feel that using a UC could send harry to the dark side. harry's fate is to be the most powerful wizard ever, but the good kind. Voldemort has the same fate, but the bad kind. I posted in another thread that harry using a UC on a death eater is simply JKR foreshadowing a definite future career for harry as an Auror.
I think we can expect that in the next book harry will have the face the repercusions of casting a UC. On a different note, however, does anyone feel that using the cruciatus (sp?) curse could be considered worse than casting the avada kedavra from a good wizard or witch's point of view? I mean the evil ones would use the torture device as a form of entertainment or to gain info, but has it ever been established that the aurors are allowed to use any of the UC's against death eaters. It seems futile for an auror to use the cruciatus curse if their only duty is to get rid of the death eaters. Therefore, is it possible that harry would face heavier punishment for attempting to use the torture curse instead of simply disposing of bellatrix?... :???:
Also, does anyone thing that Umbridge was under the influence of Voldemort? And placing her at Hogwarts was all part of his plan to lead harry to the MoM? it might be too far-fetched. :-?

[Ju-DedoH]

I agree that there is no use of Cruciatus if you want to get rid of your oponent, it would be much more effective to it the DD way (he has style)
but Harry not wanting to commit a murder couldn't think of a more powerful curse than cruciatus to protect himself from her, since she could have deflected minor spells like stupefy. so I think i understand why he used it : a mix of anger and despair since he figures out he might not win this one .

[gecko]

harry's fate is to be the most powerful wizard ever, but the good kind.

Actually, the prophecy only mentions that the one with the power to conquer the dark lord will be born, and not if he will be on the dark or the light side.

[Ju-DedoH]

ithink that what hpfan4life meant is that he is bound to be concerning the type of book his in