The Do's and Don'ts of Being a Good Character

[dicentra_spectabilis_alba]

No: HPFGUIDX 34652

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "cindysphynx" <cindysphynx at h...> wrote:
> Over the last few days, there have been several discussions about 
> whether the "good characters" did the right thing in the HP books.  
> Would Sirius have killed Peter right there in the street, and would 
> that have been OK?  Would or should Sirius have performed some other 
> sort of curse?  Would Dumbledore have killed Peter in the Shrieking 
> Shack?  Is it OK that Lupin and Sirius would have killed Peter?  Is 
> it OK for Hagrid to slam Karkaroff into a tree?  Is it OK for the 
> twins and the trio to curse Draco, Crabbe and Goyle for saying 
> something they don't like?  There are probably other examples of this.
> 
> I find it difficult to answer questions like this in any kind of 
> consistent way.  When should the Good characters be permitted to 
> deviate from conventions of fair play in the wizarding world?  How is 
> it that an author can have her Good characters behave in these 
> morally questionable ways and still remain Good in the readers' minds?
> 
> Any opinions?
> 
I don't think it's fair to get all worked up about the less-than-noble
things our beloved characters do and conclude that they can't be Good
because they did thus and so, e.g.,  Sirius is bad because he almost
killed Snape (never mind that he risked the dementor's kiss to escape
from Azkaban to protect Harry), Lupin is bad because he didn't take
his potion or tell Dumbledore about the animagi (never mind that he
helped his classes overcome their worst fears and ran to the Trio's
aid when he saw they were with Sirius and Peter), Snape is bad because
he was a DE (never mind that he risked his life to spy for the Good
side and probably will again), Hagrid is bad because he exercises poor
judgment, exposing kids to dangerous animals (never mind that he has a
heart of gold). 

These characters, like real people, have to be accepted warts and all.
 What makes characters in the Potterverse Good is not a lack of
character flaws or bad behavior but their ultimate
allegiances--Dumbledore or Voldemort, freedom or bondage, compassion
or bigotry, Good or Evil.  Their core motivations are what matter, not
their peripheral mistakes.  

Furthermore, I think that the "conventions of fair play in the
wizarding world" aren?t intended to be very politically correct.  They
don't operate in a litigious society, so it's no big deal to chuck a
hex at someone who's bothering you (probably because somehow it can be
made all better?no harm, no foul) or slam someone into a tree to make
a point. Not only that, but characters in a fictional world exist to
entertain, and characters that behave as if they'd passed a
sensitivity-training course with flying colors aren't so entertaining.

If we don't accept the flaws of the Good people, the only other course
is to conclude that the Harry Potter series truly is evil because it
models bad behavior.  Wanna go there?  I don't.

--Dicentra, whose core motivations are usually good even if her
actions frequently don't reflect that