What would happen if a wizard w successfully casts the Imperius curse on a equally powerful wizard a and then order him to cast the same curse back on w?

Follow-up questions.

It is established that casting the curse can be done recursively.

What would happen in the case of a chain of casts that would hit back the original wizard? w->a->b->c->w

The original wizard could rather command the last wizard c, in the chain, to curse his first target instead.
w->a->b->c->a wich would create a loop of a->b->c->a...

In what kind of limbo would wizards a, b and c exist in?

( for the sake of simplicity, we can assume that every curse target is not very good at resisting the curse )

  • This seems primarily opinion-based (as there is no canon answer AFAIR) and is asking more than one question. You might want to edit your question. – Meat Trademark Jun 6 '14 at 9:30

Since the curse can be cast recursively, we know that the master M can control A who can control B and so forth, with the chain of control eventually back at the hands of M.

Since A is already under the control of M, and anyone under A will be placed under M, if A casts the curse on himself, it should have no noticeable effect.

Now if A (or someone else down the line) casts the curse back on M to form a loop: By following the above logic, again, nothing should happen. M will be placed under A's control, who is already under M's control, so again, it will effectively be as if nothing had happened.

I'm not sure how much strain the control puts on M; let's say he makes a loop and at some point loses focus, ie. breaks the curse. I've listed three possibilities in order of likelihood:

  • The entire chain is broken, everyone (re)gains control of only themselves.
  • The first node (A) gains control of the entire chain and M.
  • The one who cast the spell on M gains control over the entire chain.

That's the logical answer inferred from the recursive properties of the curse. But I wouldn't be surprised to find a canon answer that states the control is reversed, but that's just a conjecture.

  • You assume M controls everyone else, that is ok and it then if works like you said. But what if a wizard only controls the target he actually casted the spell on. M tells A to cast the curse on B, but who did the actual casting M or A? Or in other words, does M controls B only because he also controls A, or is A irrelevant once the curse has been cast on B by A. – this Jun 5 '14 at 18:02
  • @self. I'm assuming a single-file line of curses, so if M controls A and B, it is implied that B is under A who is under M. If we allow different branches to converge, say M controls A and B directly, and then B or A try to control each-other, we venture in the territory of direct acyclic graphs, which is a bit more complex than I'm comfortable with in Scifi.SE. To answer your comment: In my examples A did the actual casting on B, ie. said the words, under M's control. – rath Jun 5 '14 at 18:06

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.