Source
r/HarryPotterGame•
Potential_Jello3682

Just thought of sharing

SpoilerHumour

I know alot of people of the community are torn on their beliefs on Isidora and the Keepers but I felt San Bakar was cool especially >!when he killed Isidora. Like he didnt hesitate, just stood up and went AVADAAA.!< In words of another redditor I saw in another post, he really was the embodiment of "Fuck around and find out.

Edit: So sorry for the spoilers :( its my first time posting and didnt know I had to put a tag for it.

Posted Jul 10, 2023, 9:17 AM UTC · edited

13239
Moondancer875:Ravenclaw: Ravenclaw•

I thought San Bakar was actually a good example of when Avada Kedavra is actually needed or justifiable. He was not emotional like a certain good friend of ours and did it really out of necessity as Isadora needed to be stopped.

Also, do the Keepers and Isadora exist like 400 years before Hogwarts Legacy? I do not think the Unforgivable curses were deemed Unforgivable yet that that point, as it happened some time in the 1700s.

133
Potential_Jello3682OP•

I agree on San Bakar!! I would have loved to learn more abour each of the Keepers and who they were before they became Keepers. Maybe in a DLC in future perhaps? San Bakar's time in the game was so short-lived compared to the other Keepers °^°

39
Republic1792•

From the outfits that they wear I'd have guessed 16th century so imagine there was even less scorn looked at the curses perhaps.

14
garyflopper•

I got that vibe too

1
HypocriticalCritic•

In any case, quite certainly a time where they made their poop disappear

1
peaceblaster08•

Yes! My first playthrough I was a Ravenclaw who learned the Unforgivables for knowledge's sake, but never used them. It was so satisfying to see an example of when they would be justifiable.

11
crustdrunk•

I’m doing this for mg second play through! My first character was slytherin and totally down with Seb’s antics

3
ICTheAlchemist•

Correct. Neither the Killing nor Imperius Curse were illegal in the Keepers’ time; their initial confrontation occurs sometime in the 15th century, whereas those curses weren’t banned until 1717.

What’s even more interesting to note is that those curses were legalized twice after their banning, during the first and second Wizarding Wars.

1
wanderingXbarber:Slytherin: Slytherin•

Can you point me towards your sources? I’d love to read more about it

1
seahorseMonkey•

I wonder how they explained her absence to the students. "Oh Isidora, she went to live with her grandma on the farm."

53
apotatomoose:Hufflepuff: Hufflepuff•

LMAO I didn’t even think of this. Damn

12
manusiabumi•

Probly "She resigned bc she needs to take care of her elderly father" or something like that

2
niTniT_•

"Yeah we had to kill her, due to her hoarding dangerous magic, right beneath our school ¯_(ツ)_/¯"

1
apotatomoose:Hufflepuff: Hufflepuff•

I think he was horrified when he saw her father and then learning she was doing the same to students made him be like “what she’s doing is unforgivable. She needs to be stopped” especially when she battled all 4 of them and was winning. Not sure if percival agreed, but San bakar thought it was necessary.

31
Ladyposh:Slytherin: Slytherin•

Is it dark magic or did the ministry simply declare it to be? Because the two aren’t the same, I don’t find the killing curse very dark other than the killing part, due to it being instantaneous and painless. As well as imperious. The spell itself doesn’t embody any dark magic, as it can be used for non dark magic reasons. The only one I truly consider to be dark magic is crucio cause there is nothing that spell can be used for that isn’t dark. Just my opinion tho.

17
Cleon_girl•

I don’t find the killing curse very dark other than the killing part

Flair checks out

18
Ladyposh:Slytherin: Slytherin•

😂😂 whoops, let me just slither back into the darkness.

10
Catsarecoolish:Slytherin: Slytherin•

I was just having this same conversation with my boyfriend the other day because I was thinking the same thing. He said something along the lines of that it kills you along with your soul so that’s why it’s deemed unforgivable? Not really quite sure how accurate that is, but that reasoning does kinda make sense.

1
Ladyposh:Slytherin: Slytherin•

I’m pretty sure it doesn’t kill your soul. Dumbledore was hit with it, and he still was in a version of heaven. He wouldn’t exist at all if his soul died.

1
Fowl-Legacy:Slytherin: Slytherin•

There's no other purpose for the Killing Curse. One could argue Diffindo is much more brutal, but it wasn't created to cause harm. It was created by a tailor to cut fabric & can be shielded. The Unforgivable Curses also don't provide equal fight. Unless you get to yank a large, solid object like a statue in its path, you can't block the Killing Curse. The Imperius Curse on the other hand robs the target of autonomy.

Barty Crouch Jr. (as Moody) confirmed that it takes immense power, talent & probably intent for it to work that even if the entire class was to cast it on him together at once at the time, he'd most probably come out unscathed.

1
Ladyposh:Slytherin: Slytherin•

Yea but killing someone isn’t always a bad thing. I can have indent to kill someone in self offense if it means my life or theirs, or the worlds. Imagine being able to kill curse Voldemort. Sure the story would be short and boring but think of the money they could have saved if the switched to geico before the battle of hogwarts.

1
Fowl-Legacy:Slytherin: Slytherin•

"Isn't always a bad thing" is too general & subjective. That's a loophole that'll definitely get abused every single time. If that's the case, then what would stop a dark wizard claiming he didn't kill someone on purpose, but he was out to go to the store & was attacked, so he cast it in self-defence?

1
atombomb90•

Perhaps tag this as a spoiler

13
Tricky-Performer-207•

The spells werent unforgiveable in the time that HL is placed.

The game/lore doesnt do a great job of explaining what dark magic really means. it's implied that killing someone damages your soul, but not using crucio/imperio necessarily. They also dont say how it damages your soul. Besides needing Intent when casting the 3 unforgiveables, it's not said that you need malice or hate, just that you need to mean them. San Bakar knew that she needed to be stopped, and he meant to kill her. That doesnt mean that he was evil, and I wonder if his soul was damaged in the way that dumbledore implied in the books.

It's not really ever stated well in the lore, as far as I know, how widespread wizarding knowledge is.

To cast AK...you just need to say it and mean it? So in theory, does someone need to teach you the spell? In the books, Imposter Moody claims that the entire class could cast AK on him and he'd likely not even get a nose bleed because of the lack of power the students had, and the lack of intent.

With that in mind, I'd guess that any accomplished wizard has the ability or knowledge to cast most spells, but morals keep them in line, which is interesting.

I'm sure Dumbledore knew how to cast AK. Fudge probably did, as well as Molly Weasely, but very few or almost no wizards knew how to summon the dark mark, and Snape Invented Secumsempra(which was considered dark magic) and in theory no one besides himself and Harry knew the spell.

6
herrbz•

I'd guess that any accomplished wizard has the ability or knowledge to cast most spells, but morals keep them in line

You flatter me, " said Dumbledore calmly. "Voldemort had powers I will never have. "
"Only because you're too - well - noble to use them."

11
Tricky-Performer-207•

Right...that what I said

1
herrbz•

I know, I'm agreeing with you. It's deliberately established in the first chapter of the entire book series.

1
panjoface•

I’m going to respectfully say, I was shocked by the Avada death and thought it was unnecessary. I would have kept her around to try and undo the repositories. Or something. Maybe it’s just also that the storyline doesn’t totally make sense for me. Like: could they have expanded on what the effects of the pain magic were? What if Isadora truly went mad or evil from her exposure to it. But none of that happened, it was like she was happy and her plans were all working and then poof she was dead. And I immediately thought San Bakar was wrong for killing her and also suspicious for doing so.

That’s my 2 cents.

3†
pastadudde:Ravenclaw: Ravenclaw•

also there's a weird 'glitch / cut' in one of the final memories (Isidora's?!) which I honestly thought would indicate a tampered memory.

2
Track_Long•

Yes I noticed this to, thats why I've said in other posts I think the keepers have tampered with the memories. For what purpose? to present their selves as being in the right & that AM should not be progressed or only they should progress it for enviromental reasons...but that woudn't make sense because they all took part in restoring feldcroft after the drought. Percival is the only one with AM.

1
Track_Long•

The storyline doesn't make sense. They introduce her but then theirs several time jumps. The final memory was the confrontation of isadora & I find that Bakar was a little to quick on pulling the killing curse off out in the open like that.

The story the keepers show stinks of meddling. I mean we go through the whole game without getting any sort of perspective from isadora herself...yes she has notes but there also pages missing.

No...No I think isadora was advancing AM in a way the keepers didnt like so they manipulated their memories to present her as the villain & they being in the right for killing her.

I hope the AM story resumes & we get to confront those arrogant SOB'S....hell I'd be more satisfied to burn their egotistically large portraits or even going back in time to see how events really unfolded ( yeah as cheap as going back in time is it would be an adventure...the keepers aren't going to tell the truth)

1
gamedev_42:Ravenclaw: Ravenclaw•

I completely agree with everything you said. That AK was out of nowhere and we didn’t even got to know exactly WHY what she was doing was wrong and why it was forbidden. Just because things are cryptic and dangerous does not mean we shouldn’t study them.

1
panjoface•

Yeah, I kinda felt like the story was going along great and then the ending just ended with an AK and no explanation. Then we just keep playing the game. It was a little weird. I do like the game tho.

1
themastersdaughter66•

Personally I 100% agree with bakar's method of taking down isidora. That said I also find him the most insufferable of the keepers. Like certain lives could have been saved had he not held off as we might have reached the repository WELL before Ranrok and dealt with it.

3
Sintar07:Slytherin: Slytherin•

San Bakar doesn't believe in bringing a knife to a gun fight. San Bakar doesn't believe in bringing a knife to a knife fight either. San Bakar plays to win.

2
wanderingXbarber:Slytherin: Slytherin•

San Bakar is bringing grenades to rock paper scissors

1
AutoModeratorMOD•

Welcome to r/HarryPotterGame! Please see our most recent moderator announcement for subreddit updates. And don't forget to join our Discord server where you can talk about Hogwarts Legacy & Portkey Games in real time with other fans!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1
ICTheAlchemist•

No yeah San Bakar is him fr

1
RoxieSaysPew•

I see San Bakar as Austin from Backyardigans. Don't know why

1
bobbyjae0115•

Spoiler warning…

1
OtteLoc•

Thanks for the spoiler warning......

1
vanillasheep•

Womp I wish there was a spoiler warning or tag here I’m on my first play through.

1
AKV9•

Hang on, she died? Thought Percival muttered she's still alive

1