Why Peter Truned Traitor

[Amy Z]

No: HPFGUIDX 21949

Susanna wrote:

> 1) Unlike Lucien Lacombe, he had *not* been turned down, on the 
> contrary: He had been offered friendship and loyalty. That he 
> hinmself wasn't up to accepting it, is another problem.


> 3) I know this is very thin ice, but there is a difference between 
> somebody who's not a born hero- and I know mankind isn't too rich of 
> them- and deliberately chosing the wrong side, without immediate 
> danger for your own life or the lives of people one loves. Had he 
> just stayed where he was, on Dumbledore's side, without doing 
> *anything* neither pro nor contra, *that* would be understandable. 

Being on Dumbledore's side *meant* taking sides in a very dangerous 
conflict.  Neutrality was probably less and less of an option.  Forced 
to choose, he went with the side he thought would win.  I am not in 
any way defending this!  But to say that Our Side offered him 
friendship and loyalty and expect that to have swayed him is to speak 
in the language of nobility to someone who is basically ruled by fear. 
>From his skin-saving point of view, why would he choose friendship and 
loyalty when Voldemort would "reward" that choice with torture and 
death?  

As Dumbledore says in GF, the right decision was not the easy one.  
Like so many, PP made the easy one--but that doesn't mean he leapt up 
and volunteered his services; he saw the writing on the wall and knew 
he could either stick by his friends or go with the winner.  Little 
did he know that he chose the losing side (crosses fingers).

Amy Z