This can be expanded to a more general pet peeve, which is fics that treat a certain widget of magic - Veritaserum, the Fidelius Charm, Animagus forms, Horcruxes, etc. - as a "silver bullet." JKR was very clear, both in canon and in her statements about the books, that magic doesn't have panaceas like that. No magic is unbeatable, no magic is the "perfect solution."

Then you have fics that go ahead and invent perfected versions of canon concepts like Magical oaths or a golden Patronus that take it even further. Worse still, they rob a story of conflict by giving nuanced problems easy, boring solutions instead of complex, character-driven ones.

 

How do you decide though? Take for example an Unbreakable Vow of telling the truth for x minutes.

What if the prosecution asks the defendant a question unrelated to the crime, but one that could cause the defendant to incriminate themselves for another crime, or something that the defendant wants to keep a secret and is willing to die for it by lying. How do you stop someone from doing that.

Keep in mind, that you could be talking about the prosecutor taking an Unbreakable Vow against it, but what if it was accidental? Where do you draw the line?

What I'm saying is that usage of Unbreakable Vow for any such thing is not only impractical, but not sensible either. There are so many ways to use the vow to take advantage of a person, innocent or not.

Apply the above questions to your Dumbledore scenario. Dumbledore could easily have been killed with the vow.

 

Do you really not see the problem with this, or are you just being hyperbolic?

 

You're right, but I don't have anything against the people who invent perfect versions of canon concepts and write a perfectly horrible story. I simply choose not to read them.

What irks me is when people believe magic as presented in canon could be used for such perfect solutions, which is not true at all.

 

I formulated the vow as "I'll answer any question I do answer truthfully". So, you do not have to answer every question.

How so? Again, I did stipulate that you are not forced to answer, just that when you answer, you have to be truthful.

---------- Post automerged at 11:57 ---------- Previous post was at 11:53 ----------

Again, where is the Problem risking your life for something you are already prepared to risk your life for? Not that there would be much of a risk, if any at all, if the oath simply would show to everyone that Dumbledore really is persuaded that Voldemort is back, and no, that he has not fabricated this to go after Fudge.

And of course, once he has done that, he could very well ask everyone named by Harry as having attended the resurection to swear an oath that he was not there.

Which would mean Voldemort would need to be less of an idiot, and taking such stuff into account. Not naming your masked followers would counter most of that. Using Imperius and oblivate would also work in countering such vows from ruining his plans in general.

---------- Post automerged at 11:58 ---------- Previous post was at 11:57 ----------

Nothing in canon prohibits the vow from being used as a sign of speaking the truth.

 

Do you really not see any problem with your idea? Dumbledore could be asked any number of questions which he chooses not to answer to maintain secrecy, the result of which would thoroughly question his credibility. What would that result in?

Alternatively, he could be asked something like this:
Do you have any credible evidence beyond the words of Harry Potter and an escaped convict that Voldemort is reborn?

 

He could answer "Yes." He knows it from Snape and his mark as well. If pressed, he could truthfully answer "Revealing my sources would endanger our fight against him, seeing as Death Eater suspects are among us".

Dumbledore's reputation wasn't in tatters then. They hadn't started the smear campaign yet. If the hero who fought Voldemort and Grindelwald put his life on the line to tell the truth, I'd think it would have an impact on most people. Also, Harry Potter still was the Boy-who-lived and who just won the tournament. His testmony wouldn't be that easily dismissed, not with the vow available.

Fudge might even cave in upon Dumbledore offering such an oath - he was mainly concerned about his own Position. With Dumbledore reassuring him (under vow) that he wasn't after the Ministry, he might cooperate with Dumbledore.

 

It just occured to me that this issue is similar to the "Why isn't Truth serum used during trials," question and similar question about pensieves. This solution would've worked if human's memory was infallible. It isn't, so even if wizards used the vow (which probably can't be used that way in canon, btw) during trials, it would still be inaccurate. Just imagine Slughorn and his memory about Riddle's question. He created false memory around the true one. What would happen if someone obliviated him of the true memory? He would think that the false memory is in fact true. Then, if he gave unbreakable vow to tell the truth, he would either die or lied.

 

No, not really. First of all, he would have to prove beyond doubt that what he is speaking to be the truth is actually the truth and not a delusion. Secondly, yes he could ask everyone to take an Unbreakable Vow. There is no Oath in canon. Those people can choose not to take the Vow for the reasons I stated in the previous post.

---------- Post automerged at 06:13 ---------- Previous post was at 06:08 ----------

First of all, there is no need for the Unbreakable Vow to show Snape's mark. The problem with it is again credibility. It's just as valid to Fudge as is the claim made by Crouch Junior.

Secondly, he could answer the part about revealing his sources to almost any question, which will have people thinking that he's deluded himself into believing it the truth. Remember, Unbreakable Vow doesn't know the truth. It can only force you to answer what you believe to be the truth.

Dumbledore was considered to be powerful yes, but he was also considered to be barmy. Also, his reputation doesn't really have much to do with it. Malfoy's reputation was also just as good. Dumbledore would have to prove it beyond reasonable doubt, which he cannot do with the evidence he has.

 

Given the state of the judicial system in canon, veritaserum could certainly serve to protect innocents, at least, even though the guilty could be protected by various means (against which one would suspect a wizard society would have developed counter measures in the last centuries).

Or one could word the vow as "with the truth as I know it". It's by no means a silver bullet, but it would certainly serve as a powerful tool, since at some point the "but you could have been oblivated and confunded" argument would be seen as ridiculous. I could also imagine a lawyer claiming the witness was obliviated, and a DoM expert countering it with his testimony.

In real life, cases are decided by sifting through all sorts of proof. Documents, Video, witnesses, medical reports, forensics, and so on.

---------- Post automerged at 12:19 ---------- Previous post was at 12:16 ----------

If Dumbledore was actually considered barmy in year 4, then yes, he wouldn't have much weight anymore. But given how important he was, and his knowledge of Tom coming back, I somehow do not think he would have let such a loss of reputation happen if he could have helped it.

Do we have canon sources showing that his reputation was already destroyed in year 4?

 

You still don't see the problem do you? "With the truth as I know it" automatically brings with it the validity and credibility of the witness, which could be destroyed in a large number of ways during the legal proceedings.

How is it different from just having people believe his word without the vow? In fact, how is it different from not using the vow at all?

It brings down the entire idea to whether people believe him or not, and unless you believe the Death Eaters to be completely incompetent, there are many ways they could achieve to mar the credibility of Dumbledore's statements

---------- Post automerged at 06:25 ---------- Previous post was at 06:19 ----------

Yes, it's based on the statements Rita Skeeter writes in the Prophet, the attitude of the wizarding world towards gossip. I'm not saying his reputation was destroyed, but rather, there were ideas in the general perception that could be used, in addition to 'questioning under Unbreakable Vow' to destory it in a legal proceeding.

 

I think this needs to move to its own thread, guys.

 

It's not that easy to destroy a man's credibility. It's easy to claim he is lieing. People do that every day at court. It's also easy to Claim a witness is misremembering the situation. To claim someone was manipulated or conspired to give false testimony? That's reaching.

To claim Dumbledore was delusional, or manipulated? That only works if he is already considered barmy. Otherwise, what would be the point? Who would be powerful enough to achieve it? And what for? If Dumbledore is not reaching for power for himself, who would gain from the claim of Voldemort being back?

If Dumbledore is still regarded as the greatest Wizard of his time, then his word, backed by a vow, means a lot. It would assure Fudge that this was not a political ploy aimed at him. Death Eaters unwilling to swear the same vow would have a hard time opposing him.

If he already was considered senile, then the vow wouldn't change anything, the matter would have beend ecided already in advance.

---------- Post automerged at 12:29 ---------- Previous post was at 12:27 ----------

Burtwe are not talking about legal proceedings with Dumbledore, but politics. It's a powerful tool in politics. And I doubt that it would easily be destroyed in that arena, not if the attackers couldn't use it themselves.

 

Are you saying Dubmeldore takes an Unbreakable Vow outside of legal proceedings? In front of whom?

If you mean Fudge, you do realize that Dumbledore questioned Crouch with Veritaserum right? Fudge disregarded that. Do you really think Fudge disregarded Dumbledore because he didn't see the evidence? I believe it was because he didn't want to believe, and an Unbreakable Vow wouldn't change that.

Or do you mean he does it with the Daily Prophet and his allies? If so, I'll ask you the same thing I asked before. If Dubmledore's reputation is already good, and the Unbreakable Vow cannot guarantee the truth, how is it different from claiming it without the Unbreakable Vow.

Or maybe you mean the Wizengamot? Doesn't that automatically make it a legal proceeding? I'm not saying that someone would 'claim' Dumbledore to be delusional, but rather question his credibility using his Unbreakable Vow against him, in a legal proceeding.


Anyways, I don't think we're ever going to agree with each other on this, so I'm dropping it. It's gone on long enough.

 

You guys are arguing about the wrong thing here.
Starfox5

You do this thing sometimes, with the way that you argue about HP, that goes like this:

1. There is a facet of canon that isn't completely fleshed out and is open to some degree of interpretation. (Unbreakable Vows - do they have consequences? Can they be used casually as a kind of truth-telling device?)

2. You settle on your interpretation. (Unbreakable Vows - they have no meaningful consequences and can be used as a kind of truth-telling device.)

3. You point to an incident in canon - say, Harry's trial in OotP, where there was no magical attempt at truth-telling and was instead settled by witnesses, testimony, etc, as evidence that JKR didn't think things through and her story was inconsistent or bad.

4. You ignore the (to me) much more plausible explanation, which is that the lack of magical truth telling during trials points to an unstated (but able to be inferred) aspect to magical truth telling (inconsistency, unreliability, extreme consequences, etc.) that would make it unsuibale for that use.

Or, a shorter version: we don't see Unbrekable Vows being used in canon in the way you're saying they can be used. Thus, they can't be. The reasons might not be explicitly laid out, but they are there. 100%. Part of the fun of fanfiction is coming up with those reasons yourself. To me, fanfiction goes bad when someone says, "nah, canon must just be poorly thought out. That makes more sense."

This is a Pet Peeve of mine which covers all fanfiction (and is thus an appropriate post for this thread), which is being exemplified, right now, by you.

 

So your pet peeve is "people interprete canon stuff differently than me"?

 

Not at all. There are many fascinating interpretations for why Unbreakable Vows aren't used at trials. We know they aren't, because we've seen several trials in canon. Saying "well they would be if JKR bothered to think about her own plot" isn't an interpretation of canon, it's a denial of canon.

 

Sure would ruin the story if they were able to be used.

 

What you are doing is treating fanon (aka "made up") excuses for plot holes as canon. Might call that a pet peeve of mine.

We have seen Harry's Trial, which Fudge was attempting to fix. And we have seen the Trial of Crouch Jr. and the Lestranges - who all were caught in the act.

We do not know anything about any drawbacks of the vow, apart from breaking it.

(We do know that Floo travel and Apparition didn't seem to have been thought in book 1. They certainly were never mentioned, Dumbledore took a broom to London. So there is a precedent for such plot holes.)

 

I would say that for the first 2-3 books there was still some serious world building so when looked back on many of the things brought up later in the series seem like obvious solutions. After that not so much.

If you could just make every person standing trial take veritaserum or an oath then it would be a lot less interesting and the plot would probably end up being quite dull.

Which many fics have shown by doing exactly that. Solving every problem in 2 minutes is one of the biggest issues in FF and it ends up causing forced drama and other ugly things.

Just accept that there is a reason for not doing it, even if we weren't given that reason in canon.