Re: Snape is a Good Guy


Tim Peters wrote:
> H
> B
> P
>
> S
> P
> O
> I
> L
> E
> R
>
> S
> P
> A
> C
> E
>
> ... lots snipped ...
>
> [karnak17@xxxxxx]
> > But if it were me, and I had just battled my way onto the tower,
> > and seen my mentor held captive by my protégé surrounded by Death
> > Eaters and a Werewolf, with a couple of broomsticks on the
> > ground but no second broomstick-rider in sight, a Death-Mark in
> > the sky, and all hell breaking loose behind me, I would still be
> > absorbing the situation by the time Amycus finished his speech
> > and DD started pleading. I would not instantly
> > think, "Bwaahaha, time to gloat at last" and drop
> > my shields and get myself Leglimensed by DD within the ten-
> > second time frame here.
> >
> > But it is certainly technically possible. Snape is quicker on
> > the uptake than I am.
>
> Much of this didn't take him by surprise: Flitwick had already
> told Snape that Death Eaters were fighting in the castle (can the
> Dark Mark _not_ be there then?), and Snape had to pass through a
> battle involving DEs to get to the top of the tower. "Hmm. DEs
> invading the castle. Did V have a Big Evil Plan this year? Ah,
> right, he was going to have us kill Dumbledore. Probably not
> coincidence."

Yes. To me it still requires forcing human behavior awkwardly do fit a
time frame.

But like I said, it is totally possible. I concede the point. I
officially declare that you have provided a possible answer to the
question of how DD might have gone from totally trusting Snape to "Oh,
no! Snape is out to get me."

>An oddity the book didn't explain is
> why Snape passed straight through the barrier to get to the top of
> the tower, instead of joining the fight.

Because he doesn't give a rat's ass about the fight. He cares about 1)
Draco, 2) Dumbledore, 3) The fact that something is going on top of the
tower which involves his Unbreakable Vow to Narcissa.


> [... on the morality of killing in Potterverse ...]
>
> > DD told him he [Harry] was going to have to try [to kill V]. (p511-12)
> > ...
>
> Yes.
>
> > So! DD regards even the life and dignity of Lucius Malfoy and
> > Wormtail and other Death Eaters as precious (as well he
> > should). He disapproves of those (like Crouch) who feel
> > differently. He feels compassion and pity for V, and
> > would love to be able to compel him to cease and make
> > amends for his crimes rather than kill him.
> >
> > AND YET he also appears to believe that killing is regrettably
> > necessary under some circumstances.
>
> It reads that way to me too.

Thank you.

> [karnak17]
> >>> Why does it require an "essential reworking" of the Potterverse
> >>> if we see something happen which hasn't happened yet? That
> >>> makes no sense.
>
> [Tim Peters]
> >> Come now, killing specifically has played a vital, ongoing role
> >> since the first chapter of the first book. The bad guys do a
> >> lot of it, the good guys never have that we've seen, and even
> >> when there's "an excellent reason" to kill Peter Pettigrew,
> >> Harry saves his sorry rat ass -- meeting with Dumbledore's
> >> great approval. The idea that these books have taken no moral
> >> stand on killing is (sorry) simply incredible.
>
> > Harry opposed the MURDER of a HELPLESS evildoer, who was already
> > CAPTURED, who had been terrorized into committing the crime in
> > the first place, who was (Harry believed) no danger to anybody
> > else in future, and where the only reason for killing him was
> > pure useless VENGEANCE.
>
> Do you think Harry's motive for wanting to kill V might be
> something other than vengeance?

Yes! Not that it is relevant. Feel free to start a thread about it if
you want to discuss Harry's character issues.

Meanwhile, you are very much avoiding the point I think. Your argument
is moot. There was NO "excellent" reason to kill Peter. He was a
prisoner. There is a VERY good reason to kill Voldemort; he is a
threat to others too powerful to contain. We have DD on record as
disapproving of the first, and approving of the second.

Also, we have Mad Eye Moody, DD's GOOD FRIEND, who is a "killer" as
well, when necessary. He brings in Death Eaters alive when he can, but
sometimes he can't. In defense of his own life/body parts, and in
defense of others, he will kill. And DD has no problem associating
with Moody, or declaring himself his friend. Although he wouldn't have
anything to do with the Ministry over the Stan Shunpike business, so as
to make his disapproval clear.

So a quick look at the actual story so far makes it clear that
unnecessary killing of any sort is opposed by DD, even when the victim
is evil. But *defensive* killing when *necessary* to save
lives is not. Agreed so far?

<snip>
> > This means the good guys Can Never Take A Human Life No Matter
> > What? No self-defense, defense of others, or willing sacrifices
> > for the Greater Good? This is your argument?
>
> I'm not talking about real life, I'm talking about the universe
> Rowling presented across the six books so far. She's had
> thousands of pages to lay the groundwork, and doesn't seem
> particularly concerned with brevity ;-)
> These appear to be facts, based on what the books have said;
> please correct any that are wrong:
>
> - We've never seen a good guy kill.
>
> - We've never been told that a good guy killed <snip>

> - There's a strong _implication_ that Mad-Eye Moody killed during
> his auror days. <snip>

> - Barty Crouch Sr. was disliked by the good guys for, among other
> things, _changing_ the rules so that aurors _could_ "kill rather
> than capture". <snip>

You assume far too much. Sirius dislikes Crouch for throwing him to
the Dementors without trial, and he mentioned that Crouch changed many
rules. There is no consensus that All Good Guys denounced the specific
rule change about the Aurors.

Secondly; the one thing we know, for a fact, without anybody having to
tell us, is that before or after Crouch, Aurors were allowed to kill in
self-defense, or in defense of the lives of others. Just
as any ordinary Muggle citizen would be allowed to do. Heck! Even
using lethal force on Fleeing Felons is legal for citizens where I live
-- in certain circumstances.

Crouch probably extended the law even beyond this. You know, WANTED
DEAD OR ALIVE: No questions asked about how they got that way. I agree
DD would find this immoral.

But it is ludicrous to assume that Aurors were EVER under more
stringent rules against use of lethal force than are police officers or
ordinary citizens. And equally ludicrous to assume that DD
should have expected them to be.

> - There is no death penalty in Potterverse.

Qualifies as killing a helpless prisoner.

> - Lily's sacrifice of her own life is viewed as an act of love,
> and admired -- but she didn't kill herself, she chose to allow V
> to murder her.

> I see nothing there to justify a notion that D arranging with
> Snape to kill D is a possibility in Potterverse. D seeming to
> acknowledge that Harry may be justified in killing V is hardly
> comparable.

If your argument is that this exact situation has never come up before
in the Potterverse, and that therefore they cannot be doing it now, I
don't think much of that argument.

Point 1: It has been made very clear that "Good Guys" do indeed accept
the moral rightness of killing, when it is *necessary* in defense of
self or others.

Point 2: It has been made very clear that Lily and the Flamels,
willingly choosing death for the sake of others, are admirable people.
That there is great and powerful magic in such selfless
blood sacrifice. And that, to the well-ordered mind, such death is not
to be feared.

Point 3: We have seen DD slicing open his arm, and giving a sacrifice
of his own blood, with disdainful commentary about how V sets too much
store by physical injury. Very similar to his
disdainful comments elsewhere, that V has too much fear of death.
Hint. Nudge.

There is nothing to indicate that DD willingly submitting to being
killed by an in-cahoots friend, in the interests of Saving The World,
is inconsistent with his morality, except for the fact that it Hasn't
Been Done Yet. No offense, but DUH!!!

Obviously, it would be an EXTREME sacrifice, for both Snape and DD,
which will cause grief to many, (including Harry, who was well placed
to receive the magical protection of such a sacrifice, btw).
Obviously, if DD has done it, he has done it only out of great and dire
necessity, and in response to a specific set of circumstances.
Although we don't know these exact circumstances, I think we can safely
bet that they are not circumstances which crop up very often.

Lastly, if we had already seen this done, it would surely be useless as
a Big Climactic Moment. Okay?

<snip>
> > So! Assuming the choices are 1) Draco kills D, or 2) Snape kills
> > D, or 3) Snape dies, then:
>
> From whose POV? There's no evidence . . .<snip>

Your ARGUMENT was that DD's sacrifice couldn't happen because it was
out of character.

So what I am asking you to do here is to PLEASE assume the scenario of
the DD-Sacrifice argument as the truth. And then, please, tell me what
you think DD's in-character reaction would be.

If it is really your argument that it would be a) Out Of Character or
b) Immoral, for DD to ask Snape to kill him under any circumstance,
then it is pointless for us to waste time arguing about what the
circumstances are.

> > Everything we know about D indicates that he would say --- "Eat
> > death like a man, Snape, but finish that investigation first."
> >
> > But if he said --- "Snape. It's you or me. I am old and
> > failing, and you are young. I want to sacrifice myself to save
> > you because that's the kind of Selfless Old Geezer I am, and you
> > have this important investigation to complete, which I will
> > tantalizingly avoid describing in detail" --- this
> > would 'strain everything we know' about him.
>
> If D knew about all 3 parts of Snape's UV, of course that would
> change the situation profoundly.

Exactly. I'm asking you to assume that DD knew all three parts of
Snape's UV, in fact assume the whole Snape-is-Good scenario, and answer
the question that I asked you. What would DD do in that situation?
What would be in character for him?

Because if we can't agree on that, there is no point in us even
attempting to agree upon anything else.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Snape is a Good Guy
    ... > against the wall first, then the four Death Eaters, then Malfoy, ... Snape is quicker on the ... >> Harry is expected to kill Voldemort, ... "That one of us is going to end up killing the other," said Harry. ...
    (alt.fan.harry-potter)
  • Re: To those who think Snape is evil...
    ... It seems almost all the killing was by Voldermort himself. ... The Death Eaters were worshippers ... I do agree though Snape ... Eaters was applied to that group, TTBOMK, is unknown. ...
    (alt.fan.harry-potter)
  • Re: To those who think Snape is evil...
    ... It seems almost all the killing was by Voldermort himself. ... The Death Eaters were worshippers ... was nothing more than a selfish desire to obtain power... ... I do agree though Snape ...
    (alt.fan.harry-potter)
  • Re: Islamic Terrorist Week Of Murders In Review
    ... killing nearly fifty people. ... invade a home and kill the daughter of a policeman. ... the home of a barber and shoots him to death. ...
    (soc.culture.iraq)
  • Re: Severus kicked Harrys....
    ... I knew it was Snape the minute I saw the name "Half Blood Prince" ... >> has to kill Dumbledore, or anyone else for that matter. ... >> simply stating that Draco indeed does not have the capacity in him to kill. ... Draught Of Living Death. ...
    (alt.fan.harry-potter)