81

There are three Unforgivable Curses:

  • The Killing Curse (Avada Kedavra): Kills someone
  • The Cruciatus Curse (Crucio): Causes pain
  • The Imperius Curse (Imperio): Controls their will

But what about the Memory Charm (Obliviate)? Despite its label as a charm, shouldn't it be classified as an Unforgivable Curse?

We see them quite clearly in Chamber of Secrets where by Lockhart's own admission, it has the power to make someone lose their minds:

'The adventure ends here, boys!' he said. '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 goodbye to your memories!'

He raised Ron's Spellotaped wand high over his head and yelled, 'Obliviate!'

Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets - p.224 - Bloomsbury - Chapter 17, The Chamber of Secrets

As Au101 wrote in this answer about why Gilderoy Lockhart couldn't recover from his backfired Memory Charm:

"'Say goodbye to your memories!'" There's no talk of wiping out the last 24 hours or anything like that. "[Y]ou two tragically lost your minds", he's not just gonna do enough to get away with it.

Wiping someone's mind permanently seems like a short step away from outright killing them. And even if they don't completely wipe their mind, it seems like a huge personal violation to tamper with another person's memories. You could make them forget something really precious to them (e.g. the day they met their spouse) or some harm that was done to them (e.g. abuse).

Given all of this, why isn't the Memory Charm (Obliviate) an Unforgivable Curse? Or for that matter, why isn't it regulated at all?

Community
  • 1
Thunderforge
  • 51,516
  • 43
  • 212
  • 431
  • 162
    The people in charge were going to put that on the agenda, but they all mysteriously forgot. – starpilotsix Oct 10 '16 at 17:34
  • 15
    I think that the issue here is the assumption that the use of this spell (as well as other spells that can be used for harm) is completely unregulated. The three unforgivable curses are largely only useful for harm, whereas there are legitimate unharmful reasons to allow a wizard to use Obliviate. But as we see with Sectumsempra and the Patronus Charm, there is the opportunity for regulation of spells, even those they are not specifically unforgivable to cast. If anything, I'd wonder why a number of curses, such as Sectumsempra, aren't likewise unforgivable (politics, I'd guess). – LJ2 Oct 10 '16 at 18:17
  • Think of this in a real world scenario. Guns are (mostly) illegal to own except with licensing etc. These are your unforgivables, only used for violence. Now, take a stick. I can build cool stuff with sticks, I can also sharpen a stick and stab my brother with it. One of those acts are illegal. I think you are mistaken to believe that there are no laws around using these charms. Lockhart clearly uses the memory charm in secret. It always seemed to me that had word gotten out, he would have been arrested. Unfortunately it is hard to report the memory charm being used on you - see book 6. – EvSunWoodard Oct 10 '16 at 18:30
  • Related: http://scifi.stackexchange.com/q/9269/51379 – Adamant Oct 10 '16 at 18:37
  • 4
    Honestly - I can't think of many legitimate uses for Obliviate compared with the number of potentially harmful ones (in the wizarding world anyway - as cited in an answer - dead useful for dealing with Muggles - but even then it's a bit of the honor system isn't it?) Good question! – NKCampbell Oct 10 '16 at 20:50
  • 1
    @NKCampbell There are many legitimate uses of memory charm - it's sort of Imperius that you don't need to maintain. If Voldemort won, convincing Hermione that her parents are actually DEs in disguise and that she can't stop them without hurting - then removing memory charm after she's done the deed, letting her heal her parents, then unObliviating her so she knows it's already repeating for hours would be considered an OK use, totally legitimate and in a good taste. Swap Hermione for some high-profile DE for situation where Voldemort lost. Dealing with regime's enemies is always legitimate. – Daerdemandt Oct 10 '16 at 22:45
  • 4
    @Daerdemandt - “Dealing with regime’s enemies is always legitimate.” citation needed – Adamant Oct 11 '16 at 07:19
  • 1
    @Adamant Like, Harry torturing and controlling DEs and getting away with it in a book for children? In a world where court is in deep cahoots with Ministry and where common punishments are permanent disability (removing a wand) and torture to death (Azkaban, though some peolple survive), Ministry has both incentive and means to gloss over people who remove undesirables. – Daerdemandt Oct 11 '16 at 08:18
  • 1
    @Daerdemandt - Azkaban is certainly torture. But taking away someone’s wand is about as much “permanent disability” as taking away their iPhone. – Adamant Oct 11 '16 at 08:20
  • 5
    @Adamant In muggle world? Maybe. In Wizarding world? If you can't perform magic you would need very open-minded employer to get even an entry-level job as a janitor or something because you can't even be a part of society normally. It would be closer to some disability preventing one from mundane tasks like driving a car or using public transport, doing chores efficiently and so on. So, more like "crippling anxiety that prevents one from using any electronic device" than "taking away one's iphone". – Daerdemandt Oct 11 '16 at 09:17
  • 2
    This is exactly why Hogwarts needs an Ethics course. –  Oct 11 '16 at 16:06
  • 4
    @M-A I suppose Ethics professor tried to explain Dumbledore that witholding means of mass-producable sustainable immortality is basically genocide and was immediately sent to next great adventure. – Daerdemandt Oct 11 '16 at 17:35
  • "...or some harm that was done to them (e.g. abuse)." That could possibly be a good thing if you're trying to, say, treat PTSD resulting from said harm (note: this is pure conjecture, so don't quote me on that!). – Vikki Apr 29 '18 at 19:32
  • There's always the thing about unforgivables needing you to mean harm. Obliviation doesn't seem to require any mental conviction – marcellothearcane Sep 16 '18 at 06:51

5 Answers5

69

It's not an unforgivable curse because it's a standard spell, used all the times by the wizards who have to deal with muggles witnessing magic.

‘It’s like some sort of … I dunno … like some sort of rally,’ said Mr Roberts. ‘They all seem to know each other. Like a big party.’ At that moment, a wizard in plus-fours appeared out of thin air next to Mr Roberts’s front door. ‘Obliviate!’ he said sharply, pointing his wand at Mr Roberts. Instantly, Mr Roberts’s eyes slid out of focus, his brows unknitted and a look of dreamy unconcern fell over his face.

Goblet of Fire

They are even called Obliviators

Arnold Peasegood, he’s an Obliviator –member of the Accidental Magic Reversal Squad, you know … and that’s Bode and Croaker … they’re Unspeakables …’

Goblet of Fire

Indeed in Halfblood Prince there are entire teams out there responsible for maintaining secrets

Fudge grimaced. ‘He used giants last time, when he wanted to go for the grand effect. The Office of Misinformation has been working round the clock, we’ve had teams of Obliviators out trying to modify the memories of all the Muggles who saw what really happened, we’ve got most of the Department for the Regulation and Control of Magical Creatures running around Somerset, but we can’t find the giant –it’s been a disaster.’

Halfblood Prince

It should also be noted, although Crouch authorises the use of unforgivable curses during the first war, this can be linked to martial law during WW2, emergency situations can lead to normal laws being relaxed or set aside.

Community
  • 1
  • 43
    I don't like the implication that a spell that can violate a person's memories is okay because "everybody is doing it" and it has institutional support, but I suspect that in the Wizarding Workd, that may be the right answer. – Thunderforge Oct 10 '16 at 18:00
  • 6
    That's using it on Muggles who saw things, though. That doesn't explain the lack of laws against using it on other wizards. –  Oct 10 '16 at 18:01
  • 1
    @Axelrod as far as I'm aware the law on unforgivable curses doesn't differentiate either? –  Oct 10 '16 at 18:07
  • 7
    @Thunderforge I'm pretty sure it's illegal when used to cause harm, but it's not unforgivable. Admittedly, it's not that different from Imperius. – Bergi Oct 10 '16 at 18:21
  • 3
    This answer is using some serious circular reasoning. It's not unforgivable because everyone uses it because it's not unforgivable? Right. – Martha Oct 11 '16 at 02:41
  • 2
    I'd imagine someone could try to find theraputic uses for it. – JETM Oct 11 '16 at 03:04
  • 1
    @Martha you do know how people work in real life? Pretty much psychology 101 –  Oct 11 '16 at 05:59
  • 1
    I had always assumed it was a necessary spell, given the wizarding world's choice to remain hidden from the muggle world. A spell with such utility being Unforgivable just seems a bit hypocritical to me. You muggle, I erase your memory - no problems, but for you wizard - that is so uncool I'm going to jail man. – Srconstruct Oct 11 '16 at 11:38
  • 4
    Funny how even someone like Hermione (who used Obliviate on the Death Eaters who attacked them in the cafe in London in Deathly Hallows) doesn't seem to have even the slightest qualm about the completely arbitrary way wizards Obliviate Muggles all the time. It may be necessary to preserve the secret of magic, but it never occurs to any wizard that this is a violation of another human being's mind. Maybe Muggles are considered sub-human by wizards? – Wallnut Oct 11 '16 at 15:16
  • 2
    @Wallnut Maybe? From what we've seen, we appear to be like chimpanzees to them - muggle-borns are pretty much threated like orphans, as far as the wizards are concerned. You'll get arrested for openly torturing or killing muggles, but that's about it. There are plenty of good reasons for this, of course, but in the end, we simply aren't quite human. Just look at the foremost wizarding muggle-experts - they have no idea how anything in the muggle world works at all. Sure, it's mostly for comedic effect, but so is the ease with which the wizards dispense obliviations :) – Luaan Oct 11 '16 at 16:14
  • 1
    There are hints that the memory charm can be at least partially reversed. Voldemort does this to gain information about the tri-wizard tournament. – Adam Oct 11 '16 at 22:15
  • 1
    @JETM Same could be said of imperio - could be used for therapy - but it can be abused too easily. I suppose even crucio could be enjoyable to the right type ;) – talrnu Oct 11 '16 at 23:47
  • @JETM In fact that has been thought of before; there was some years ago this issue on the BBC that being able to target specific memories might be helpful for some with e.g. PTSD. Personally although I have memories I don't like (though no PTSD) I wouldn't trust this to not harm other memories and even terrible memories are part of me. But I can more or less remove memories from myself that I don't want to remember though it takes time and effort. So yes some might consider it for therapy though imo it's really risky; still it's been thought of before. – Pryftan Dec 03 '17 at 00:02
  • @Adam Another example: Dumbledore with (and this is probably also how Voldemort did it and thus not so common) Legilimency was able to extract the truth from Morfin Gaunt about Riddle's visit to him just before he stunned him [Morfin] and then with his wand went to kill the Riddles; then he modified the memory of Morfin and since Morfin not only admitted it but had also previously attacked a Muggle he was imprisoned. Dumbledore was too late to get him released before death but he did get the truth in time for the ultimate destruction of Voldemort. At least I seem to recall Legilimency. – Pryftan Dec 03 '17 at 00:06
49

The Unforgiveable Curses are the curses for which there is no legitimate use at all. A memory charm could have, and does have, legitimate, honourable uses - modifying the memory of a muggle who's seen magic, or helping a person to overcome severe trauma, for example. Like almost anything, there's the potential there for abuse, absolutely there is, but unlike the Unforgiveables, they can be used for good. The Unforgiveable Curses are so named because

"The use of any one of them will...earn you a one-way ticket to Azkaban."

It's worth remembering that JKR pretty much wrote the Potterverse in broad strokes, skipping a lot of detail that we, as obsessive fans, then...well...obsess over. Details like exactly how you control how much memory is wiped by the memory charm, or how you can control what memories are wiped. Apparently that control does exist, though, because we know that Hermione managed to wipe her parents memories of her, specifically. We also know that these memories can be restored later, another reason that the charm is not Unforgiveable.

EDITED TO ADD:

For a wizard, who has access to the ability to stun, disarm, restrain, or otherwise incapacitate an attacker, self-defence isn't a legitimate reason to kill/cause agonizing pain/override one's free will. We muggles are used to the idea that to stop someone, you might have to kill them or cause extreme pain, but even we have the notion of 'excessive force'. For a wizard, killing someone directly and unambiguously is excessive. Even a spell like Sectumsempra could be used to, say, cut off someone's wand hand.

The exception would come when one is facing an enemy that routinely uses the Killing Curse, which cannot be blocked. That's why Barty Crouch authorized the use of the Unforgiveables during the war.

Werrf
  • 15,927
  • 5
  • 67
  • 81
  • 2
    There are legitimate uses for most effective sef-defence spell on the market though. – Daerdemandt Oct 10 '16 at 22:34
  • 3
    It's not that they have no legitimate uses (self defense is usually considered legitimate), it's that they have no uses that don't cause harm. But this is still closer to the correct answer than saying that "everybody is doing it, so it must be OK". – Martha Oct 11 '16 at 02:39
  • 1
    So, the Unforgivable Curses are the magical equivalent to Schedule 1 drugs in the US. No legitimate use in medicine, but can still be used for other reasons. – SGR Oct 11 '16 at 07:16
  • 8
    I would have thought the Imperius Curse (Imperio) (controls their will) could be used for the occasional good? Imagine someone wanting to throw themselves off a bridge. This could be used to stop them but you'd get a nasty trip to Azkaban for trying to help? – Tikeb Oct 11 '16 at 10:09
  • 12
    Better to use a hover charm to catch them, or a stunner to knock them out and move them to safety. The thing is that with other spells available, you don't need to use the Unforgiveables. It's the difference between shooting back at an attacker and killing them vs executing an unresisting person at point blank range with a headshot. We muggles tend to think of self-defence as the ability to kill an attacker, because we don't really have an effective middle ground. Wizards do have that middle ground. – Werrf Oct 11 '16 at 12:03
  • 2
    Hmmm. I'd argue that anyone being mortally threatened by a wizard who has a shield stronger than they can break can only reasonably defend themselves by means of a spell which can go through any shield. Though wizard society seems to have a lot of "might makes right" type assumptions. – Murphy Oct 11 '16 at 15:13
  • 1
    @Werrf Hermione used a False Memory Charm on her parents. She used Obliviate on the Death Eaters after they triggered the taboo. The former is what Voldemort used on Morfin Gaunt to make him believe - and confess - in the killings of the Riddles. But it seems to me that Obliviate does have some way of specifying memories because I'm sure the Obliviators don't wipe out Muggle's memories utterly. – Pryftan Dec 03 '17 at 00:19
  • 1
    @Tikeb Thus is the way laws are written. I'd like to believe that they would let that go. Otoh one could argue you could also modify their memory so that they think they have no reason to commit suicide (or whatever; this might be difficult without knowing why they're suicidal though). You could do many other things too. Some would be called abuse and others not. – Pryftan Dec 03 '17 at 00:21
  • 1
    @Werrf Although I thought hover charm only works on objects? Or is there a difference between levitation? Either way we do have middle ground. Hostage negotiation for example? But suicidal people can also be negotiated with. I know this from experience: both helping others and others helping me. Many examples are out there too. – Pryftan Dec 03 '17 at 00:24
  • 1
    @Daerdemandt The unforgivable curses are not defensive spells. Avada Kedavra only kills someone, and has no counter curse or protection (except in exceedingly rare, contrived cases). Crucio is only for torturing someone (not sure if it can be countered/Protego'd). Imperio lets you mind control someone like a puppet (though it can be fought off/Protego'd). Obliviate can be used as numerous others have said now for non-harmful/non-agency related things: keeping muggles unaware of magic, making someone forget something you wanted to be a surprise, etc. And Obliviate can be undone. – TylerH Apr 01 '21 at 16:05
  • @TylerH Yes, AK is the most effective sigle-target self-defence spell available. IIRC, there are no recorded cases of an attacker continuing the attack after being hit by one. Imperio is more humane and could be useful in law enforcement, but shields are available to virtually anyone, so AK or nothing. Crucio is just torture, sure, but torture is an important part of wizarding community. Even Hermione didn't protest Azkaban. Crucio could be spun as a safer way of disciplining magical creatures and unruly kids. – Daerdemandt Apr 11 '21 at 14:33
  • 1
    @Daerdemandt Offense is not defense. A defensive spell does not do any harm to someone on its own. – TylerH Apr 11 '21 at 18:48
  • @TylerH Defence only means thwarting enemy's attacks. Doing or not doing any harm is a secondary concern. A spell that risks primary objective in favor of secondary objective is less suited for the task. In a world with readily available shields, not using AK in a life or death scenario is a gamble. – Daerdemandt Apr 11 '21 at 23:42
  • 1
    @Daerdemandt Point your wand at someone eating ice cream in front of you and yell "Protego" and nothing will happen to them because they aren't attacking you with a spell. That's a defensive spell. Point your wand at them and yell "Avada Kedavra" and they'll die, because you've just attacked them with an offensive spell. That's... literally the difference between defense and offense. Avada Kedavra is an offensive killing spell, just like guns are offensive killing weapons, not defensive weapons. – TylerH Apr 12 '21 at 13:25
  • Point your wand at the attacker in a life or death situation and yell "Protego" and his AK will kill you. Point your wand at them and yell "Avada Kedavra" and you will survive this encounter. While Protego may yield less collateral in defence against ice cream, if we go by actual life-threatening scenarios it is dominated by AK. It seems to me that your definition of defence puts "not being an offence" above actually protecting something. They are not mutually exclusive. Also pointing your wand at strangers and yelling things is impolite in a country that saw 2 civil wars in couple decades. – Daerdemandt Apr 27 '21 at 10:38
5

The classification is done by the ministry, which clearly has great convenience from using obliviate on muggles. They'd need a strong incentive to outlaw it, which they don't have, given the spells usage is socially accepted.
Compare it to todays guns laws: even very restrictive countries equip their soldiers and law officers with guns, since not doing so would bring them a disadvantage with no real benefits.

On a side note, unbreakable vows can also be used to control someone, and are considered quite normal if I recall correctly.

sh4dow
  • 51
  • 1
  • 3
  • 1
    How does an unbreakable vow control someone? – JohnP Oct 05 '17 at 18:56
  • It kills the victim when he breaks the vow - basically the victim can choose between the effects of avada kedavra and imperius. – sh4dow Oct 06 '17 at 20:55
  • It kills both of them. Hardly a great control. – JohnP Oct 07 '17 at 07:36
  • 1
    It kills the one who breaks the vow, and there is no rule that says that both have to promise something. If there is a difference to the unforgivable curses it's that for the vow to work the victim has to verbally agree (which might be done via imperio as a 2nd layer of safety, or by persuasion/extortion/crucio), while the other curses are unblockable, and that the vow isn't useful in actively hostile environments. – sh4dow Oct 08 '17 at 09:57
  • 2
    @sh4dow Are you saying Imperio can't be resisted? Because that's not actually true. Harry even resists Voldemort's in GOF (Barty Crouch Jr as Mad-Eye teaches Harry's class but only Harry is successful in the ability)! And Barty Crouch Jr resists his father's too though it took years for him to do so. – Pryftan Dec 03 '17 at 00:27
  • @Pryftan it can't be blocked (ie. protego is useless) - resisting it later is another matter – sh4dow Dec 04 '17 at 10:15
  • @sh4dow Where in my comment did I use the word 'blocked'? I used the words 'resisted' and 'resists' but not 'blocked'. So what are you trying to tell me? And not that it's in the slightest bit relevant to my comment but do we have any evidence that it can or can't be blocked? But to humour you: if something is resisted completely then that is the same end result as blocking it. In other words you're arguing semantics; it's incorrect because it ignores the end result which is what matters in this. Exception perhaps it happens over time but as for Harry against Voldemort he resisted it first. – Pryftan Dec 04 '17 at 21:19
  • I was saying that from the books it seems like unbreakable curses themselves can't be blocked: once cast successfully, they go right through magical shields and armor/clothing. You can only resist the effect: in the case of the imperius spell you are always compelled by it, but can resist the influence if your are 'stronger' than the caster. Crucio always inflicts pain, and avada kedavra always kills - so even though horcruxes can help you survive your death, you still die - the spell still worked - while other spells like stupefy can be blocked completely without stunning anyone. – sh4dow Dec 06 '17 at 11:22
  • @sh4dow A strong-willed person can 'resist' the Imperius curse and shrug off its effects entirely. That's exactly how Barty Crouch Jr. escaped. So you are not "always compelled by it". – TylerH Apr 01 '21 at 16:09
  • @TylerH that's still resisting the effect of the spell instead of blocking the spell itself. – sh4dow Apr 13 '21 at 15:16
1

I imagine that the obliviate curse could be resisted, similarly to Harry's resistance of Voldemorts mind reading ability.

William Ledbetter
  • 1,087
  • 1
  • 13
  • 21
  • 5
    Not true. The Imperius Curse can be fought. – Wildcard Oct 11 '16 at 16:17
  • 1
    -1 for clearly wrong answer. Like Wildcard pointed out, The Imperius Curse can be fought. And in fact Harry was more talented of blocking Imperio than using Occlumency against Voldemorts Legilimens. And to quote Professor Snape "You have no subtlety, Potter. You do not understand fine distinctions. It is one of the shortcomings that makes you such a lamentable potion-maker." Meaning that there's a clear difference between Legilimens and mind reading. (I didn't find that exact quote in english, but that points to the same thing) – Renttutar Oct 14 '16 at 07:57
  • true those are possible to resist, I was referring to the Killing Curse, sorry I did not make this more clear, but again your comment makes my point, Obliviate is not forbidden in part because there is a possibility of resistance. – William Ledbetter Nov 14 '16 at 02:18
  • @WilliamLedbetter Harry resists that is more like after Voldemort tries to possess him and Harry thinks of his friend/loved ones it pains Voldemort so much he doesn't try Legilimency again. And later on Harry still sees in Voldemort's mind/actions but he also does block it out at times of necessity. I don't see how you could resist Obliviate though if you're hit by it. Someone else can extract it though for sure; Dumbledore does this and so does Voldemort. And Hermione only uses a False Memory Charm on her parents so that she can restore their memories of her etc. – Pryftan Dec 03 '17 at 00:31
0

Any Curse Can Be Used Illegally

There are multiple reasons why this is not unforgivable.

1: Any curse can be used with bad intentions. For example, you can use Expelliarmus to throw an opponent off a cliff, that was used with ill-intent, but it is not an unforgivable curse. So really wiping/modifying someone's memory could be used with good intentions (to wipe the memory of a muggle who saw you perform magic) or with bad intentions (to make someone forget what you want them to forget) just because it has the OPPORTUNITY to be used badly, it is not necessarily an evil curse, whereas, with all of the unforgivable, there is no way to use them in a good way.

The Ministry Uses It Regularly

The Aurors, while cleared to perform unforgivable curses, would still avoid doing so. However, we can notice that the ministry has a whole department devoted wiping memories, called Obliviators. So how could it be illegal, if most of the ministry have jobs that concern the stature of secrecy and protecting it through these memory charms?

ava
  • 622
  • 3
  • 11