I think you usually see one of two characterisations for Mad-Eye.

Option 1 is what you might call the "Jedi" characterisation. He hates dark wizards and would never stoop to using dark magic himself. He's a lawman but he has honour and fights clean.

Option 2 is what you might call the "hardarse" characterisation. He's pragmatic, ruthless, and judges by ends, not means. He's prepared to use any magic if it is in pursuit of what he considers a good cause.

There's a few indications of Option 1 in the books. Mad-Eye is certainly said to hate dark wizards and has taken down quite a few in his time. He also clearly dislikes dishonourable tactics like Malfoy going to curse Harry from behind. But equally, he is shown to be a shrewd and canny operator, gruff and rough around the edges, and quite pragmatic in outlook. It's implied he killed Rosier as well, which suggests something of Option 2, and presumably he agrees with Remus Lupin's approach to killing Death Eaters as stated in DH.

Which approach do you prefer?

 

One thing that I believe fanon has diverged quickly severely from the books is the whole idea of dark magic somehow being the more combat oriented or more helpful in a fight.

The only indication we have for this iirc is that dark magic scars can't be healed and the Unforgivable curses. Other than that, dark wizards and not terrible people are always portrayed as fighting on equal terms(ignoring Dumbledore), and no mention of dark magic is made.

I think limiting the concept of dark magic to simply more 'violent' spells is not only incorrect, but also loses much of the depth that the setting inherently has.

All that is to say, Moody may well be a hardass, pragmatic and ruthless, be willing to employ any means, but still not need to resort to dark magic because it won't be helpful to the ends he's fighting for. You don't need dark magic to kill people, even assuming he did that.

 

Well, what does it mean to fight 'clean'? Moody could still carve up and blow chunks out of dark wizards without using dark magic, and I certainly don't see him holding back in a fight.

 

I would assume that dark magic gives you at least some advantage over alternatives, why would you use it otherwise?

Making dark magic just the "evil" version of in every way equal "light" magic seems a bit shallow and reduces the human aspect of it all into a black and white evil vs good conflict and removes all shades of grey from the equation.

 

For any number of other reasons? Magic is not meant just for battle.

 

I always viewed Dark Magic as fueled primarily by emotion and inherently corrupting. Fuel a transfiguration of a pineapple into snuff box with enough hate, rage, fear, disgust, etc enough times and you will eventually get a new spell.

One could argue that Dark magic is magic that goes against the nature order of things. A ritual that eliminates the need for sleep could definitely be viewed as Dark, since sleep is a key part of the human experience. Same goes for whatever rituals that LV did in addition to the Horcruxes that warped his body and mind.

As for Moody, he’s definitely warped by his use of Dark Magic. IMO, He had no trouble using it during the 1st war, and all of his natural paranoia and demeanour got worse from the use of it. It was only his fanatical hatred of Dark Wizards and self-discipline that kept him (mostly) on the straight and narrow.

 

For sure. But even for those other uses there needs to be some advantage for using one spell over another. Otherwise you simply wouldn't use it.

 

And there might well be, real or perceived, but how is that relevant? What are you arguing against?

 

My impression has always been that Moody is practically-minded when it comes to magic. Crouch demonstrated Unforgivable Curses in class, I must assume this would not have been out of character for Moody or else Dumbledore would've been suspicious. I don't think Moody is the Punisher, but I don't think he's idealistic and always by-the-book either. You can be pragmatic without being over-the-top violent. I also assume that Moody is the caliber of wizard for whom disabling en enemy via killing or securely binding them is not much of a difference, so he would not go out of his way to kill Death Eaters if he could bring them in, but if push comes to shove, he won't hesitate to kill if that's a better way to remove the threat.

 

I wasn't even aware Option 1 even existed. With every story I can remember at this point, he's always been Option 2.

 

I have always assumec that how Crouch behaved as Moody was very close to how the real Moody would act.

Otherwise, I don't see how he would be confident enough to be in the presence of someone like Dumbledore on a constant basis.

So from what we saw of Crouch Jr.

The real Moody skews closer to Option 2.

 

According to Sirius Moody seemed to be against killing unless absolutely necesarry, and is only about using a reasonable amount of force even against Death Eaters.

 

aAlouda's quote of canon is very useful as we clearly see that Moody is truly "option1" canonically.

I only see one old thread here about the nature of Dark Magic. Perhaps a new one would be useful as it seems a point of confusion for many? Dark Magic is used by people who aren't very moral, are overcome by emotion and want to harm their opponents, and of course because power is sweet and exercising it feels good. Honestly that's pretty much all there is to it, I don't understand the nonsensical debate on dark magic.

Having said all that, if you want to follow canon better do option1. That's what I would choose, there are other characters that could fit option2 roles, no reason to make Moody one of them.

 

You could argue that Moody wanted to bring the Death Eaters in alive not as him being more honourable but him wanting them to suffer for the rest of their lives because he does approve of the dementors in Goblet of Fire during Dumbledore's pensieve memories of the Death Eater trials.

 

You could argue that, but I can't recall anything that suggests he was that vindictive.

 

^Crouch Jr. treats the kids of Death Eaters poorly when masquerading as Moody and no one seems to find it out of character, so I'd say that indicates he was at least somewhat vindictive.

 

Eh, wasn't that Crouch?

I guess Crouch probably did what he thought Moody would have done, but he may have been wrong. It might also have been about petty schoolyard shit, but perfectly acceptable in a real fight.