Malice and Ulterior Motives

[hickengruendler]

No: HPFGUIDX 138819

 
> 
> Alla:
> 
> Erm... That is not what I said. " Snape killing Dumbledore equals 
> Snape hurting his soul" does not imply that Snape should let other 
> people die.
> 
> It only implies that Snape should not kill Dumbledore, IMO.
 
Hickengruendler:

However, what other choice did Snape have? Supposing he had not 
killed Dumbledore, do you think all those other characters had 
survived? In the end, not killing Dumbledore would IMO have been 
equivalent with deciding to let more people die. Because Dumbledore 
would have died either by the Potion or through the hands of the 
other Death Eaters anyway. And then Snape, the one who urged the 
other DEs to flee the scene, would have died as well for not 
fulfilling the vow. And if there was noone to make them leave, they 
could have done much more harm than they already did, to Harry and to 
the other Hogwarts inhabitants, at least to those who were fighting. 

There was no hope for Dumbledore in this scene, and I think both 
Snape and Dumbledore knew this. And if killing really splits the soul 
and Snape was acting on Dumbledore's wishes, than Snape made in fact 
a greater sacrifice than Dumbledore. On the other hand, this 
selflessness does not fit his character at all. 

But I'm not sure what exactly splits the soul. Is it the act of 
killing itself, or is it that you are that evil, that you wish 
somebody dead and decide to act on this wish? If it's the later, then 
the deed might not have split Snape's soul, if he only acted on 
Dumbledore's orders.