Re: Unbreakable vow question
- From: Toon <toon@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2006 08:14:38 -0500
On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 13:47:26 -0700, "Fish Eye no Miko"
<fisheye@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>Christian Winter wrote:
>
>> Adam Corolla wrote:
>
>>> Is an unbreakable vow unbreakable because you die if you break
>>> it, or does it simply make it impossible to break the vow, like it's
>>> impossible to touch your right hand to your right elbow?
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unbreakable_Vow
>
>"It is always performed with a witness on hand, holding their wand on the
>agreeing persons' linked hands to bind them with a tongue of flame"
>
>Seeing as we've only seen it done once, how can we assume that?
It's logical they'd perform it the standard dandard way.
>"The vow-taker retains the free will to break the vow..."
>
>And where's the evidence for that? I don't recall anything in the book
>saying that. COULD it be true? Yes. But nothing in canon says it is.
>
>Catherine Johnson.
Yes. because Arthur says if you break it you die. And was enraged
the twins dared try and do it to Ron. A little boy's more likely to
simply change his mind, then agree to a task he has any doubts in.
besides, why included a death clause for failure of skill? Chocie of
failure makes sense. You don't chose to break it, because you tend to
become living impaired.
.
- References:
- Unbreakable vow question
- From: Adam Corolla
- Re: Unbreakable vow question
- From: Christian Winter
- Re: Unbreakable vow question
- From: Fish Eye no Miko
- Unbreakable vow question
- Prev by Date: Re: The Pig that Squeals is the One that was Stuck (HBP spoilers)
- Next by Date: Re: Unbreakable vow question
- Previous by thread: Re: Unbreakable vow question
- Next by thread: Re: Unbreakable vow question
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|