On the trivial and the profound/Dumbledore's attitude

[pippin_999]

No: HPFGUIDX 165493

> 
> Valky:
> In the end when he faced Dumbledore one on one, yes, his heart wasn't
> in doing the task in cold blood, but he *was* up to sending the Opal
> necklace, Poisoning the drink, fixing the wardrobe to allow the DE's
> into Hogwarts. These were all things he might have applied Luck to
> while his heart *was* in saving his parents lives however he could;
> using unforgivables, putting the deadly necklace into unsuspecting
> hands; Don't forget how much Harry likened himself to Voldemort when
> he was using the FF to get a memory from Slughorn, surely that shows
> that Luck doesn't care if your steps are morally justified, it
> wouldn't have changed the things Draco was willing to do.


Pippin:
If Draco was lucky, he'd have fixed the cabinet straightaway, and he
wouldn't have needed the necklace or the poison. If the Death Eaters 
had entered the castle during one of Dumbledore's earlier 
excursions, he would have returned unpoisoned and well able 
to deal with whatever Draco and his crew could throw at him.

All through canon, Harry's been drawn to things that might not be
good for him: the Mirror of Erised, the Diary, his parents' voices in
PoA, the dreams in OOP. The HBP book is another example. Yet 
these are all things that were or could be useful *if* Harry used
them responsibly. But using them as a security blanket or a 
substitute for relationships with real people -- ahh, that's a bit
too much like Tom Riddle for my comfort. 

Pippin