Why did Harry never used a killing curse against his enemies? For example, in OotP when Bellatrix was escaping, he was very angry, I thought he will try to kill her, not just make her suffer. Another example is when Crabbe tried to kill Hermione in the Room of Requirement, why did he just used a stunning spell, he was in war, his enemies had killed a lot of allies and friends, he should shot to kill, the less enemies, the less danger. And in the final battle against Voldemort, he risked a lot using Expelliarmus, although he knew that he was the master of the Elder wand.

 

I don't understand some people's fascination with this trope. Harry didn't use the Killing Curse. So what? There are many other ways to kill someone with magic. Ways which are easier than casting an Unforgivable. You should remember that he didn't even properly cast the Cruciatus Curse.

Maybe because he's not a soldier? I know some people think that learning a few spells makes you competent in the battlefield, but it doesn't. You have to know tactics, discipline and have an understanding of what's acceptable when you're in a war.

In canon, Harry is not a trained soldier though. He is just a kid who is in a really, really bad situation. He has been through a lot, true, but most of them were just him trying to survive. And he had the strength to deal with his anger and rise above his enemies. Even if he was willing to kill someone, he wouldn't try to systematically kill the opposition to have fewer enemies.

For the record, I'm also frustrated with canon's concept of war. It wasn't displayed well, and it felt more like terrorism than a war. There was what, only Battle of Hogwarts and a few guerilla attacks? I also think Harry should've been more involved in the war. But even if he were to kill, it would be in defense of others, not in revenge. It wouldn't fit his character otherwise.

 

He doesn't want to cut his soul? He'd rather not be condemned to life in Azkaban? Or maybe he thinks it would be amazingly stupid to try a spell for the first time in a life-or-death situation, especially when he has been said that he was from powerful enough to cast it efficiently in the first place.

Frankly, even without talking about morality or the fact that assassinating anyone is totally opposite to Harry's character, there are plenty of reasons not to use it.

 

A teenager who is NOT willing to kill, my god what is wrong with him?

 

So Harry's not inclined to use the Curse that killed his parents? Wow, really? That's a huge shock.

 

This is a really important point to remember. Harry's not a soldier, he's a kid who's in over his head. Deathly Hallows pretty much directly addresses this when Lupin tries to talk to Harry about how the conflict has gone past the point of using stunning and disarming spells, and Harry just refuses to listen. He doesn't want to cross the line into killing, even if the circumstances make that seem like the most reasonable course of action.

Now, one could argue about whether they would prefer a more hardened Harry who accepts that war will require killing your opponents, but that's not the Harry we got in canon. Showing Harry going into child soldier territory probably would've pushed everything into a much darker direction that Rowling wanted for her books. One of the pretty consistent themes of HP is Harry trying to hold onto something resembling a normal childhood despite all the insanity around him, and his relative innocence when it comes to use of force is just one more example of this.

 

This was mostly what I meant to say. As you have explained, there is a war of sorts going on, and it makes sense that it is rather small-scale since the tools of the war are mostly magical. And Harry Potter Books was centered around the character Harry, so it makes sense that we see Harry's adventures only.

But we didn't get to see the struggle a lot if the events didn't relate in any way to Harry. The escape of Death Eaters from Azkaban, the assassination of the Minister of Magic, racist politics inside the Ministry... These all happened off-screen. I know it makes some sort of sense that they were off-screen, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't like to read them happening. All those power plays, clever moves and duels... It is just- there are a lot of potentials there, and the books barely covered the surface.

I was mostly satisfied with the way Rowling handled things when I first read the book. But then I read mostly clever characters, outsmarting their opponents rather than relying on luck. And I'm really obsessed with Worm for the past couple of months. So maybe that's why I find the Second War a bit lacking these days.

 

Except this isn't true. Remus Lupin chastised Harry for not killing Stan Stunpike, and Harry responded by saying that Stan was an innocent.

Harry did, in fact, kill Death Eaters during the Battle of the Seven Potters.

 

The biggest problem with the canon "war" is that the sides don't make much sense. People like Malfoy pretty much control the ministry from book one, in book five that control is close enough absolute, and at that point people like Malfoy enter in open conflict -- against themselves?

The concept of a civil war with HP magic is interesting, but for it to work you need to have clear goals for each side. As it is, canon baddies pretty much want power simply because that's what evil dudes do. And so the fights don't really have any real weight: why are the people on Voldermort's side so willing to throw themselves against the defenders of Hogwarts?

 

Sure, but are you honestly saying that the purebloods simply wanted to bully the muggleborn, and that running concentration camps was the _reason_ for the "revolution"? That being homicidal sociopaths was all there is to them?

I mean, even the Nazis had a theory of a global conspiracy of Jews that they claimed was oppressing the "ordinary people", and you could in fact argue that Jews were generally better off than the average people and use that as evidence. And even then the Nazis had much broader platform than just genocide, and some of their policies actually made life better for some of the post-WWI germans (not that I'm in any way defending Nazis, they just make more sense than Voldemort - and doesn't that say something of Voldemort as a character...).

In case of purebloods, it's about the elite starting a terror campaing for the right to hunt muggles. Which they could pretty much do anyway, as the ministry didn't care and/or was corrupt. Sure there was the claim that muggleborns were stealing magic, but if that was even a part of their genuine motivation, why was there no mention of that theory in the first six books?

The canon civil war just makes no sense. It's literally just evil dudes doing evil things because they are evil. There's no attempt to expand on the reasoning behind Voldermort and Death Eaters, they are just a bunch of crazy people. And a bunch of crazy people is about as boring a villain as you can get.

 

Sure, no question about that. It's only the framing of the "war" that makes no sense.

It would make some sense if DEs were sort of magical version of KKK formed after a previous civil war that increased the rights of muggleborns, but the situation with blood purity has literally been the same ever since Salazar left the other founders thousand years earlier.

Like, maybe if there was some back story about Dumbledore being more active in his role as the "champion of muggleborns". For example if he forced some new legislation through, or made muggle studies compulsory in Hogwarts, or hailed Lily Potter as a hero, or even did something to the rampant bullying in Hogwarts. But none of that happened. It's just muggleborns being treated as second class citizens for a thousand years, and then Voldemort comes along and is like "hey, they don't have it bad enough". That just reads to me as lazy characterization.

Of course HP canon is a children's story and black and white morality and uncomplicated villainy is expected, but that doesn't make it any less jarring.

 

I read DH at 15, I don't think I would have wanted to read about a 17 year old going around killing people. My parents wouldn't have approved either.
HP is a children's series. It was never meant for mature audience.

 

The above post is the main reason.
In story reasons:
Harry following what he precieves his mentor (Dumbledore) path
In addition Harry comparing himself to Tom Riddle.

Interesting premise might be:
Hermione dies in battle shortly after the wedding, especially to a stunned enemy who was revived, it might be worthy to explore the effects it will have on Harry.
I rarely see fics that involve Hermione dies and Harry needs to figure to where he go.

 

What I liked was Remus telling Harry to cut it out with Expelliarmus and to do something else. Granted the kid doesn't listen but I found it funny that even Rowling thought he was a shitty wizard. I think it was the best when Remus blasted Harry across the room.

 

This may not add to the discussion, but I always saw the war against Voldemort as a more terrorist/civil war affair.

And it always amazed me that, as a terrorist-like organization, the Death Eaters never used Apparition fully when coupled with say, Fiendfyre.

Imagine the havoc it would cause if someone teleported into Diagon Alley, unleashed some Fiendfyre (cursed that that's incredibly hard to dis-spell), and then just popped away to somewhere else.

That sounds worse than any sort of bomb in my opinion.

Once again, sorry for not really adding to the discussion.

 

Harry Potter magic is so epic that it can fuck the world in a day. Imperio a bunch of muggles and incite riots, get Obliviators out, imperio them, take over the ministry in a day.

Imperio is the most over power curse ever. You can rule the world by proxie so easily. And it is supposedly really hard to detct and dispell.

 

Yeah... but the death eaters never wanted to destroy Diagon Alley. They shopped their too after all. They targeted very specific individuals in Diagon Alley, but there was never any huge destruction within the alley. Actually, I think if you look into it, most of their real attacks were only upon individuals against them or their creed and against muggles. Most of the fanon of these massacres of large groups of random wizards doesn't seem to be supported in the books. At least thats how I remember it.