Likeable Regulus.

[prep0strus]

No: HPFGUIDX 178013

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant107" <eggplant107 at ...>
wrote:

> 
> Well we know a bit more than that. We know that with the exception of
> Harry and Dumbledore nobody did more to bring down Voldemort than
> Regulus. I don't know if he was likable or not but when he died he
> must have been a good person.
> 

Prep0strus:

I don't think this follows, other than in the 'the enemy of my enemy
is my friend' kind of way.  It is certainly possible that Regalus died
a 'good person'.  But I don't believe that caring for a certain person
or idea necessarily then makes you a caring, good person in the rest
of life.  

I think Narcissa is a good example - she cared for her son, her
family, and, in the end, cared for them more than she cared for the
Voldemort or what he stood for.  But if caring for her son did not
come in conflict with Voldemort, I don't think she would have turned
on him.  If Draco had become an honored and protected servant of
Voldemort's, I think she would have been fine in his service.  And,
even had she or any of her family never joined up with him, that
wouldn't have made her a 'good person', as she still would likely have
been a pureblooded, arrogant, nasty, superior woman.

Regalus caring for Kreacher does not negate the possibility that he
still believed in pureblooded ideology, or even in violence towards
innocents.  It could just mean that he turned against a superior who
treated something HE cared about badly.

It's possible Regalus had a true change of heart, but there's no
definitive evidence of it.  When one bad guy does something to another
bad guy, and the second bad guy retaliates, does that mean the second
bad guy has changed what he is?  And when Regalus cares about
Kreacher, is it caring for an equal, a pet, or something in between?
And does it matter if he still hates muggleborns?

Eggplant
> I am more interested in actions than in motivations and beliefs and
> his actions were good. 


Prep0strus:
Here we simply disagree. I think motivations are both more
interesting, and more important in the end.  Also, I'm not sure that
actions CAN be 'good'.  I suppose they can have 'good' results. 
Destroying Voldemort is 'good', so taking the locket was 'good'.  But
his motivations in doing so are much more interesting.  Was it because
he realized how dangerous Voldemort is and that he needed to stop him?
 Did he realize that the Horcruxes made him something truly evil,
beyond what he thought? Was it revenge for what he did to Kreacher? 
Was it so that he could learn how to make a Horcrux himself and
challenge the dark lord?

Your statement suggests that if he was still a terrible, violent bigot
 who stole the locket for selfish, horrible reasons... the action
still would have been good, and therefore he would have been good.

Motivations and beliefs are what give characters and people their
reason for existing and our way to understand their actions.  Doing
something wrong for the right reasons and the right beliefs is a
mistake made by a good person.  Doing something right for the wrong
reasons and the wrong beliefs... well, I guess that's also a 'mistake'
- but that is not a good person.

I just don't feel like I got enough of Regalus to know his
motivations.  Turning against Voldemort isn't enough to make a person
'good', in my opinion.

~Adam (Prep0strus)