Question

[lls_mutant]

Do there need to be three people present to do the Unbreakable Vow? The vower, the vowee, and the caster? I'd like to get away with using two, but I'm not 100% positive I can. (I can see where you'd need three to make it legal- if an Unbreakable Vow really is all that legal- but the boys in question aren't too concerned with legality at the moment.)

Thoughts?

Comments

Hmmm...

[jazzypom.livejournal.com]

I think magic all depends on the intent, really. I can understand why three would be desirable (the notion of the trio, the equal figure, the symbol of power, the fact that there's a third party just in case the other person decides to welsh). But I'm sure that Ron only did it with one of the twins, no? (the book didn't say). But if the situation was hairy enough, I'm sure that the vow could stand between two people.

Sorry to hear about your grandmum. My deepest apologies, but at least she leaves with happy memories, no?

regards

[lady-nimua.livejournal.com]

i think you won't go to hell if you aren't 100% canon accurate. Just apologies prettily in author's notes and your flist will forgive you.

[snorkackcatcher]

I think it really does have to be three people -- Snape asks Bella to be 'our Bonder' with an initial capital letter, which suggests that the third person is an important part of the spell. When Ron mentions it, he said both twins tried to get him to make one (with Ron holding hands with Fred). So it's going to look canonically odd if there are only two people there.

I don't think legality is the issue, anyway? It's the magical bond that's important, and which presumably kills the vower if they break it, not the legalities. (You can't imagine Narcissa would exactly be able to sue if Snape broke his, for example. :D)

[shaggydogstail.livejournal.com]

I've just had a look at Spinner's End, and it does seem that you need three people--the third is referred to by Snape as the 'Bonder.' (The whole thing reminds me of some bizarre twist on a marriage ceremony, actually.)

Still, there's more than one way to skin a cat--if you can't write a third person into the scene, you could perhaps have them try to do it with only two and make what you will out of it, or just make up your own spell, that does something similar. Since the Unbreakable Vow isn't the only binding magical contract in canon--there's the GoF and life debts, for example-- I'd say you've got plenty of scope for invention.

[midnitemaraud-r.livejournal.com]

I was under the impression that it was the third person Bonder who was the actual caster and therefore the important ingredient in the spell itself. It doesn't seem the sort of spell where you can be both vow participant and caster - sort of like a Minister or Justice of the Peace trying to officiate at his/her own wedding, you know? "I now pronounce me"? Heh.

Most spells are personal, but this is more than just a spell - it's a magically binding contract. And like certain contracts of ours need an 'impartial' witness to be valid, I think it's true here in the magical sense. At least that's the impression I got. I mean, if Bellatrix hadn't accompanied Narcissa, would Snape have made the same official pledge? There was more to the spell than just the promise - Bellatrix was part of the vow as more than just an observer.

[organic-cookie.livejournal.com]

I'm usually one who's a stickler for keeping with canon, but since you said legality isn't a question at the moment... maybe you could bend the rules a bit. I would, honestly.

P.S. This is Ms. Jellybean from the MRFH forums, if you were wondering.

Re: Hmmm...

[a-t-rain.livejournal.com]

Nope, both twins: "Fred and George tried to get me to make one when I was about five." (I doubt that seven-year-old Fred and George would have a clue how to go about it anyway -- Arthur probably whupped 'em more for the intent than anything.)

[a-t-rain.livejournal.com]

I was under the impression that it was the third person Bonder who was the actual caster and therefore the important ingredient in the spell itself.

I think you're right -- Snape et al. use Bellatrix's wand, not Narcissa's.

Re: Hmmm...

[lls-mutant.livejournal.com]

Thanks- and you're right. Happy memories.

The general consenus seems to be that you need three. I thought it was only one of the twins, too, but I guess not. (And I'd guess that a_t_rain is right about Arthur whooping for intent more than actual consequences!) But I'll get around it somehow.

[lls-mutant.livejournal.com]

I might have to do that! (Or find another way of getting around it!) Thanks.

thanks for that!

[jazzypom.livejournal.com]

I don't have my book to hand, so it's all a bit hazy.

[lls-mutant.livejournal.com]

Yeah. ::Sigh:: I'm gonna have to rework this scene a little, I think.

The legal/moral apect comes in that it seems like spells are something that are created more than discovered, and I could see someone building in that third party so that there's always a witness to something so serious, and perhaps there's a variation to it where you don't need the third party. Or that that's how it's normally done because the Ministry requires that third person, but if you don't care about rules the two people could perform it themselves. But I think I'm stuck. Oh well.

[lls-mutant.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I think I need three. Unless I have a Sekrit Variation (which is a possibility, especially given who I'm working with.)

I could go with another contract, I suppose, but the Unbreakable Vow just has such impact and oomph, y'know? Definitely needs to be the Unbreakable Vow, just for effect. ::sigh::

[lls-mutant.livejournal.com]

Yeah, that seems to be the consensus. I -might- be able to get around it with a Super Sekrit variation or something, but I suspect I can find a better way. It's just the scene in my mind had such oomph with just the two participants... oh well. Thanks!

[lls-mutant.livejournal.com]

Cool :) Welcome!

I'm tempted to bend the rules. The character is smart enough to come up with a variation, and as mentioned, legality isn't an issue. It's really more the impact, you know? It's a huge statement of trust, and I like it as just the two participants knowing about this. Hmmmm.

[snorkackcatcher]

Obliviate? Or a character who's beng killed off?

[lls-mutant.livejournal.com]

Using a major memory charm in this chapter already. I'm thinking the character that's being killed off might be the way to go. Stupid canon, but maybe I can work it to my advantage. I haven't played with the Black family in a long time.

[a-t-rain.livejournal.com]

A huge statement of trust? Totally different quibble, but I'd read it as exactly the opposite (cf. Snape and Bellatrix) -- it's what you do when you distrust somebody so much that you want to ensure that they're backed into a corner.

[lls-mutant.livejournal.com]

Depends on the perspective you're looking at it from. From the person who is extracting the vow, I totally agree with you. (As is the case in this scenario.) But for the person making the vow, depending on what vow they're making (and in this case it's to obey without question), it's definitely a statement of trust. At least in this case. The vowee is putting himself completely in the hands of the person who wants the vow in this situation. (I don't think you read Accidentally In Love, given the content, so I can say this. (and if you do, stop reading now.) What I'm doing is sending Remus and Regulus after Voldemort's horcrux. Regulus doesn't want to tell Remus any more than he has to, and so he's trying to ensure that Remus will obey him without question. Remus asks Regulus to trust him, Regulus says no, and Remus capitulates saying "then I guess I'll have to trust you." I REALLY want to end on that line, with Remus giving Regulus his hand, just because it packs a punch, but I think canon's going to make me get around that. Pttthfth to canon. :P So it does make sense. Really :) )

[yma2.livejournal.com]

I think it's three. Because I see the vow less as legal and more as very, VERY magical. That kind of ceremony needs a witness. I can't see it working without one, to be honest.
I think it can be done, mark you, I just don't think it'd work.