Trial of Severus Snape - WAS Re: Harry IS Snape.

[pippin_999]

No: HPFGUIDX 141380

 Alla:
> 
> Here is my hypothetical take on your hypothetical situation, Pippin. 
> I am saying it, because I am not sure that there was no solution 
> that could have been saved both Dumbledore and Draco. Granted, that 
> solution may not have included Snape being alive, but I absolutely 
> think that this is  the price he should have paid for his idiocy.
> 

Pippin:
Seems to me we need to get the variables nailed down here, because
there is a vast opportunity to play fast and loose.
To wit, Snape was an idiot to take the vow, except that some are 
arguing that there must have been a way to outwit it, in which case, 
he wouldn't have been an idiot to take it. ( And if he wanted to kill 
Dumbledore anyway, why should he have been twitchy about it?)

Consider also that if he refused to take it, Bella and Narcissa would
have had to kill him  lest he reveal their treachery to his master.
Surely it was more important to survive and warn Dumbledore that
there was a plot than to die in a useless gesture of loyalty?

Cut to the tower, where Dumbledore has to be so helpless that
he can't defend himself from a fall, but not,  in the style of
Terry Pratchett let us  be very clear about this, in any danger at all 
of actually dying. ;-)

Then there are four Death Eaters, whom Snape would have had to 
defeat, assuming the vow didn't kill him immediately, before
they could kill Dumbledore themselves or take Draco hostage.
It's canon that the only time we ever saw Snape take on more
than one wizard at once, he was disarmed and overpowered by
three teenagers...but hey, it's fantasy, right?

So given all that, I will accept the hypothesis that Snape could
have saved both Dumbledore and Draco. It'd be pure parmesan
if it'd been actually written that way, IMO, but I have no cause to
complain since others apparently have a similar opinion of the 
scenarios that appeal to me. :-)


Alla:
> Anyways, back to your hypothetical IF Snape's ONLY motive of killing 
> DD was to save Draco,

Pippin:
Seeing as how Snape had vowed to watch over Draco and protect him
on pain of death, I'd say that motive was pretty strong...

Alla:
 then sure I can see mitigating circumstances 
> in what he did, since caring for a child ( even if  this child is 
> Draco ;)) is a good thing, BUT I absolutely won't go beyond calling 
> it mitigating circustances, I most definitely will not call Snape's 
> actions heroic, etc.

Pippin:
So, um, Snape wasn't a hero for saving Harry from Quirrell's
curse because that's what any responsible adult should do, but
he should suffer remorse and go to Azkaban and Dumbledore's 
ghost should haunt him forever, because he should have let
Draco die. Somehow, I don't think Dumbledore would want that.

I used to wonder what Dumbledore would do if he ever found 
that his  duty to the Order conflicted with his duty to Hogwarts --
we know now. A general would let the enemy's child die and
call it collateral damage. Headmaster Dumbledore, as much in
loco parentis to Draco as he is to Harry, would die for
his kid, just as James and Lily did.

The prodigal son isn't Snape or Harry -- it's Draco.


Pippin