Dutchman Dirk Willems was a religious prisoner who escaped in 1569, but when the guard pursuing him fell through the ice of a river, Willems turned around to save the guard. He was then recaptured and burned at stake.
Dutchman Dirk Willems was a religious prisoner who escaped in 1569, but when the guard pursuing him fell through the ice of a river, Willems turned around to save the guard. He was then recaptured and burned at stake.
if I recall, he does the imperious curse successfully a few times, so it's not like he can't or is even above using unforgivable curses.
Beyond Harry's unwillingness to use the killing curse in that instance, what's wild to me is that nobody that's not ontologically evil uses the killing curse. Like, the adults are all mad at Harry's stupidity for giving away his position by using a nonlethal spell, but all of those adults are also not using the killing curse. This suggests a hegemonic worldview where it's obvious and sensible that you should want to kill your enemy, but it's only acceptable if you do it in an indirect and roundabout way. It's fine to stun or petrify them so they fall off a broom and die on impact with the ground, but it's beyond the pale to kill them directly with a spell.
Maybe all the wizard cultures where actually doing useful combat magic was acceptable died out because they all abacadabra'd eachother to extinction during the stone age.
Unforgivable Killing curse = not morally okay
🅱️one Removal spell = morally okay
what's not to get
Also he had no problem casting a spell on draco that slashed him open. Killing curse that leaves no mark requires you to be evil, but you can cast sword without knowing what it'll do