1. I shouldn't have been such an ass right then, but I can't stand copycat shit. It's just such a boring putdown.

2. Dark Magic also means secret. Which means many Dark Magic spells are only found out when someone finally hears the incantation when the damage is cast, and even then, are unsure of the particular vector of which the magic enforced its will upon reality. Sectumsempra and Diffindo both cut things, but one of these is definitely more lethal, and apparently requires particular chantings to heal and suture the wounds to stop the bleeding. I wouldn't be surprised if it also contained an element that slowed down platelets ad scab formation, thus ensuring a nice constant flow. Sectumsempra is easily a highly lethal and dangerous spell in any hands, especially against victims who cannot get access to medical attention.

Not to mention that Dark Magic would see more innovation and ingenuity applied constantly than most other magics, what with other spell inventions highly regulated by governments, and Dark Magic being banned by default anyways, so anyone interested in it wouldn't give a damn about authorities anyways. So what is known about Dark Magic constantly changes.

The kind of people who would revel in the Dark Arts typically revel in part due to them holding secret, higher knowledge and ability to inflict pain or hold power above the normal. Like combining "I know so much and I am so smart" with Gun carriers who wish a motherfucker would. This could easily lead into a perpetuating cycle.

And I wouldn't be surprised if some Dark Magic was designed or simply was corrupting and addicting by its very nature and the people it attracts in the first place.

 

Just depends if he knows a good transmission mechanic. That crap is to the left of witchcraft and definitely in the darker realms.

 

What kind of person would have designed the Cruciatus, and what kind of person would look for it to use in the future? And Dark doesn't have to mean Evil, it can also mean secret. Although its most likely secret because its highly fucking illegal or some shit which kind of pokes a hole in the distinction.

 

I feel dumb, because I don't understand shit of what you're telling me.

 

No? I am making a guess, pure and simple. Discussing the implications and possibilities. Whether or not simply casting and performing "Dark Magic" is addicting is up for discussion, but the thrill of holding absolute domination with the Imperius, regardless of the spells simple effect on you, would be highly appealing to some. And torture can have adverse effects on the Torturer as well as the victim. The rest is just general guessing at the kind of people who go for Dark Arts and why. Although it wouldn't shock me if some Aurors and Death Eaters shared suspiciously similar repertoires but sought them for entirely different reasons.

The person who designs a torture spell, is in need of a torture spell, and would strongly desire such a thing exist. But why? It could Spanish Inquisition types, thinking they are doing good while being monsters, or it could be simply assholes and serial killers who want to play with their victims.

Now, let's play pretend, and for demonstration, I really am going to pull something out of my ass.

Now imagine a curse which causes barbed wire to sprout from the victims body, transfigured from the victims blood vessels, and entwines them and whoever else the caster desires to ensnare. Who the hell would design such a needlessly brutal curse to be used for subduing and capturing people? What kind of person would actively aim for something of such brutality? Freaking monsters who really enjoy making their victims suffer.

The magic itself doesn't have to be corrupting, but the psychological effects of doing certain kind of harm to people and the psychology of people doing said harm for its own sake, is well documented as "fucking insane.".

 

Harry used all manner of dark magic, fom Snape's curse to the Unforgiveables. He showed no addiction or orruption from the experience in canon.

 

People always say its odd that Dumbledore never knew Moody was a fake, but this is explained by Moody always being a bit odd.

But one thing he would never have been able to fake, is his magic.

We know from HBP that Dumbledore can sense latent magic, and can identify the caster, saying he knows Toms magic since he taught him (and probably studied him somewhat afterwards).

Surely he know Moody magic, either from teaching him or being good friends, so he would be able to sense that Barty is no Moody.

 

I always assumed that Dumbledore knew Voldemort's methods instead of literally feeling the magic. As in "This combination of spells tells me Tom did this.", instead of "Tom cast this spell.".

As for Moody. Is he actually that good of a fiend of Dumbledore's, or is that just fanon?

 

Actually, I'm pretty sure Moody is a decent person, not an evil spirit conjured by Dumbledore.

 

He was in the first Order of the Phoenix, so it's at least implied in the books that they are 'friends'. Though I think that's more of a 'they have fond feelings for each other and will do each other favors' as opposed to actually knowing a lot about each other.

I get the impression that Dumbledore doesn't really have friends, just acquaintances he likes and those he doesn't.

 

The thing is . . . there has to be a reason that Dumbledore was reexamining his memory of Barty Crouch Jr.'s trial. I think at some point, Albus was starting to realize there was something fishy going on. For Harry to see that memory in the Penseive, Dumbledore had to be reconsidering it.

Sesc mentioned a while ago that his theory was that JKR decided retroactively to have it be so that Barty was Moody the whole time. Building on this, I think what she may have been aiming for originally was another situation where Barty somehow broke in the very night that Harry first spotted him on the map, or some date close to it. That would work in story because it is possible to break in (Sirius, Quirrell with his troll, etc.), and because that would mean that it was originally Moody who came to Hogwarts, and who was able to survive the scrutiny of Dumbledore, but that at some point, near the end of term (Harry is studying for the Second Task around February-ish), when Albus has bigger fish to fry and is worried about other shit (Third Task, Fudge's bullshit, Crouch's absences, whatever), Barty Jr. sneaks in (with Winky or his father, or something), defeats Moody and stuffs him in his own trunk, and assumes Moody's identity for himself, skating by on Occlumency not for the entire year as we assumed, but for a much shorter time. And if he was skilled in Occlumency, maybe he just lied about when Moody was captured.

This has the added benefit of maintaining more of Dumbledore's competence, because even with all this other stuff happening, he begins to think maybe Moody is not who he says he is.

Unless, of course, Harry saw that memory before he saw Barty on the map, in which case, he was there from the beginning and Dumbledore is still more competent than we thought for starting to realize it sooner.

 

Speaking of Occlumency, who among the canon characters was skilled in it? Aside from Dumbledore, Snape and Voldemort.

 

Bellatrix taught Draco enough to stop Snape from invading his mind (or at least enough to let him resist for a moment so that he would stop voluntarily).

 

Harry had also learned by the end of DH to use it proficiently enough that he could keep himself from being overwhelmed by Voldemort's thoughts, which might be more impressive when we consider that their souls were linked together, souls being a connection on a level perhaps even deeper than mentality.

I actually think that's the best/greatest source of information on the subject in the books. Snape's description is marred by . . . well, Snape.

 

Unfortunately, what Harry did in DH wasn't occlumency. It was specific to Voldemort's particular vulnerability, not a general skill.

 

Doesn't he himself describe it as Occlumency? Even in Snape's terms of 'close your mind,' that's what he does. Unless you have some specific quote that says it wasn't?

I know people here don't like to give Harry any credit, but what was it, if not Occlumency?

For instance, according to the wiki (which, I know, isn't the most reliable source):

So Harry's method might actually be considered, according to the W.O.M.B.A.T., a form of Occlumency.

I'm not claiming he mastered it, just that he was able to use it at various times/in various situations.

Some of it doesn't match what Snape was saying, but we know why that is. Snape was a douchebag who wasn't trying to teach Harry anything. It's impossible not to think anything. What Harry learned was focus, how to be in control of himself by maintaining his attention on the here and now. Zen-like. He kept Voldemort out of his mind by situating himself so firmly within his own that he could not be pulled away to any other mental space. And that . . . is Harry's Occlumency. I don't know if all Occlumency is like that, but it sure sounds like the point of Occlumency to me.

And it also sounds like a technique one could use to keep someone from seeing their memories, to keep someone from knowing when you're telling a lie, as Snape used it to keep Voldemort out the same way.