Likeable Regulus.

[dumbledore11214]

No: HPFGUIDX 178022

--- 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?


Alla:

Ah, but you see to me it depends on action. Totally agree with you 
in general that caring for one person does not make you a good 
person ( Cough Snape cough), but the thing is Regulus cared for 
house elf. He cared for the being, whose standing seems to me to be  
lowest of low in the WW.

Cared enough to die for him. I mean, I guess the fact that 
Voldemort's ideology is Purebloods rule and every other being be 
damned tells me that Regulus changed indeed.

It is not the fact that Regulus died for somebody, it is the fact 
that he died for **house elf** that tells me NOT that.

Do I know that he was socially nice person? NO clue. But do I think 
that he was not racist, murderer and torturer when he died? I think 
so, yes.

I do not believe that somebody who would have still had in his head 
those thoughts would have agreed to die for house elf, or goblin or 
werewolf or any non - human race.

He did not just retaliate against Voldie, he saved a life, no?

He did not just steal a horcrux, he drank that horrible horrible 
thing. He would never enjoy the consequences of his retaliation, the 
only satisfaction for him, for this poor eighteen year old to know 
that his elf would live, is it not?


I do not know. I cried for Regulus. His fate stands up for me a 
great deal.

Narcissa, well, yes, we hear that she wants to go with victorious 
army, right?

I totally know that she is selfish ( what mother would not be?) and 
that she could care less about Harry winning. I give her props for 
lying to Voldemort, but do not consider her to be a good person or 
something, just a mother, scared for the fate of her son.

I do not see any hint of selfish motivations in Regulus' story and I 
do see a hint that he was seeking a Truth and found it (symbolism of 
him being a seeker?) besides the story itself.









> 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?

Alla:

I totally agree. Motivations are very important to me, absolutely. 
But to me I guess certain actions ARE good in itself, motivations or 
not.


I do not particularly care for Snape's motivations, as you know. 
Meaning that while I give him props for his heroic actions, keeping 
Harry alive as Lily's son, while continue to hate the boy whom he 
did so much evil to ( IMO), does not impress me terribly.

BUT Snape saving Lupin, oh YES. That is impressive to me. It shows 
to me something, I do not know, lack of selfishness on Snape behalf 
and maybe he finally gave up his grudge, if he realised that Lupin 
is a good guy who does not deserve to die?

Whatever his motivation is, I am impressed by that action in itself, 
even if he just decided to let Lupin live to make sure he can 
torment him later on or something.


PrepOStrus: 
> 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.
<SNIP>


Alla:

Yes, if ALL that Reg did was stealing the locket, I agree, I would 
have asked for motivations, for sure.

Luckily for me, he did something that I do not need motivation for - 
he saved a life of house elf.

Terrible violent bigots in my mind would never do it.

JMO of course.

Alla