Peter's basic nature v Snape basic nature/ Which one is worse? Pure speculat

[a_svirn]

No: HPFGUIDX 145009

 
> Magpie:
> 
> To me there's the important thing about Peter right there: "What 
was 
> there to be gained by refusing him?"  Peter does not see something 
> inherently worthwhile in doing the right thing.  Perhaps it's fear 
> driving him, though I'd also say it sounds a lot like despair.  
> Reading this now it puts me in mind of Dumbledore on the Tower 
when 
> Malfoy asks him what it matters what language he (Malfoy) uses 
when 
> Dumbledore is about to die, and Dumbledore tells him it does 
matter, 
> because it always matters, even if it won't make any difference to 
the 
> wider situation.  
> 
> This is why I don't understand reading Malfoy's own lowering of 
his 
> wand as cowardice.  He's put in a similar situation to Peter in 
HBP 
> (not the same, but similar).  He's got every reason to kill 
> Dumbledore.  

a_svirn:
On the contrary, he has a very good reason NOT to kill Dumbledore. A 
reason Dumbledore had just spelled out for him. By the end of HBP 
Draco had realised that he and his mother were nothing but pawns for 
Voldemort. He could not punish Lucius directly so he punished him 
vicariously (sorry, Alla, couldn't resist). That night on the Tower 
Dumbledore offered Draco and Narcissa freedom. And Draco was 
tempted. He started to lower his wand, but then the prospect of 
Voldemort's  favour started to outweigh the Dumbledore's 
offer. "I've got that far" he said. So, I'd say, like with Peter it 
was about "what is their to gain" vs. "what is there to loose" with 
Draco.