Good reasons for DD to die ( was Could I be wrong about Snape being evil) lo

[justcarol67]

No: HPFGUIDX 156589

katssirius wrote:

> The third possibility is I admit the one I believe. Dumbledore knew
> everything and Severus was completely open with him. <snip>
> Severus Snape is surprised by the Death Eaters' presence in the
> castle. He could not warn anyone. He was held by an unbreakable
> vow with Narcissa and for all we know he may have had another one
> with Dumbledore. <snip>

Carol responds:
I essentially agree with your position, but I want to comment on the
idea that Snape might have been bound by an Unbreakable Vow with
Dumbledore.

I think this idea is a mistake. Dumbledore believes in choices and
second chances. Neither is compatible with the idea of compulsion. I
can imagine Dumbledore extracting a *promise* from Snape to do
whatever he requires of him. In fact, if Hagrid is correct in his
report of the argument in the forest, Snape has made some sort of
promise to Dumbledore and DD reminds him of it. But that's very
different from binding someone with ropes of fire to do your will.
Even if the UV isn't dark magic, and IMO it is, it involves compulsion
and the penalty of death for breaking it. I can't imagine Dumbledore
doing that to anyone. He trusts Snape to do the right thing, not
because he has compelled him against his will to do so but because he
believes that Snape has made the right choice, to oppose Voldemort,
and will do so again and again.

I know I'm not arguing well in this post, but I can't imagine
Dumbledore entering into a contract that forced the other person to do
his will. He negotiates with Draco, who has come to kill him, trusting
that Draco will do the right thing. I think his trust of Severus
Snape, whom he knows much better and who has risked his life to spy
for him, has a firmer foundation than an Unbreakable Vow, an
understanding of Snape's fundamental character that Harry and the
reader are not yet privileged to share.

Also, as I've pointed out elsewhere, an Unbreakable Vow requires a
third person as Bonder. I can't imagine either Hagrid, who can't keep
a secret to save his life, or McGonagall, who would view such
compulsion as evil, acting in that role. Clearly McGonagall didn't,
since she didn't know the reason for DD's trust in Snape, and I can't
imagine Hagrid shooting rings of fire from his pink umbrella.

There must be some more valid reason for Dumbledore's trust in Snape
than a vow that would cost Snape's life if he broke it. IOW,
Dumbledore must believe that Snape deserves his trust and have solid
reasons for that belief.

Carol, who thinks that McGonagall's statement in SS/PS that there are
some things Dumbledore is too noble to do applies to Unbreakable Vows
as well as to Unforgiveable Curses and Horcruxes