Likeable Regulus.

[Mike]

No: HPFGUIDX 178050

> Prep0strus:
> 
> I think maybe I can imagine worse things, then - because I can 
> picture someone who would save his elf but still be horrible in 
> other regards. I don't think Regulus just started loving Kreacher. 
> I think he cared for him the whole time - when he joined up with 
> the DE, when he spouted evil nonsense about Muggleborns... 
> <snip> 
> - while he did and said terrible things.

Mike:
You've already said that we don't have enough information about 
Regulus to draw a conclusion either way on his "goodness". Which 
makes these musings curious. 

In OotP, Sirius told us his parents were pureblood maniacs that 
agreed with Voldemort's ideas - originally. <pp. 111-2, US> Then he 
adds, "convinced that to be a Black made you practically royal ... my 
idiot brother, soft enough to believe them ..." and "But I bet my 
parents thought Regulus was a right little hero for joining up at 
first." <ibid> Regulus was probably about 14 when Sirius severed ties 
to his family. He joined when 16 and died at age 17.

Sirius obviously held his family in extreme disfavor. He quite 
possibly exaggerating both his parents' and Regulus' true leanings.  
Yet Sirius still includes the line about "Black royalty" when 
describing his parents attitudes, the ones that Regulus was "soft 
enough to believe". IMO, this line more accurately portrays why 
Regulus stayed on his parents side of the fence. He was young enough 
and pliable enough to enjoy the perception of royalty.

My thinking is that, though Regulus was a follower of Voldemort, it 
was him parroting his parents views that led him to become a DE. 
Further, I perceive that Regulus was enamored with the idea of 
royalty, of being in charge more than belief in the pureblood dogma. 
I see that as a much more likely idea for a 16-year-old to latch 
onto, than the more nebulous pureblood fanaticism that has no obvious 
benefits to one of his age.

Does that make him a better person, if my postulation is correct? In 
my mind, yes. Beleiving your parents, parroting their ideals is not 
admirable in and of itself. But thinking yourself special is much 
less distasteful than espousing bigoted pulchitrude. Then, by 
sacrificing his life for the dual purpose of bringing down Voldemort 
and revenging his House Elf, it seems Regulus has even abandoned his 
sense of royal entitlement. All within a year of joining.

Lastly, as to whether Regulus had other acts of despicability to his 
credit as a DE, he was still in school. Dumbledore's school. He had 
but one summer away from school to be involved in some unknown 
atrocities. And at 16, being underage, what are the chances that 
Voldemort would assign him to some activities that would have been 
recorded by the MoM with the Trace? I find it highly unlikely Regulus 
was asked to be involved in anything criminal.



> Prep0strus:
> His sacrifice for Kreacher is admirable, but I'm not sure it's
> evidence of a change of heart about other things.

Mike:
This assumes he needed to change his heart in the first place. Plus, 
like Alla said, I have a hard time reconciling a bigoted pureblood 
with the act of giving up your life for a House Elf. Besides, 
wouldn't bringing down the leader of the pureblood movement be an 
anathema to a true pureblood dogmatist?



> Prep0strus:
> This is interesting to me, as [Eggplant] and Alla reach the same 
> conclusions each using a different piece of the two pieces of 
> information we have. Meanwhile, I don't find either sufficient - I 
> don't think we understand his motivation for stealing the locket 
> well enough to ascribe 'goodness' to it, <snip>

Mike:
It shows me that there are two good reasons to believe that Regulus 
either changed his ways or never had to change them in the first 
place to be ascribed to the side of 'goodness'. And as you have 
pointed out, we have *no* evidence that he did or didn't espouse the 
pureblood mania that his parents believed. The scales seem to be 
tipped in the favor of good, IMO.



> Prep0strus:
> <snip of intent discussion>
> 
> If Regulus was trying to do something bad, or if he was still a 
> bigot who simply wanted revenge on his old leader, maybe so he 
> could be a NEW dark lord... he is not, by any means, a good guy.

Mike:
This is where your argument falls apart for me. I do ascribe to the 
old tenet - 'actions speak louder than words'. Insofar as Regulus is 
concerned, I agree with Eggplant, his actions are measureable while 
his mindset is unknowable. You have been postulating worst possible 
scenarios, except you have practically no basis to form these 
postulations other than unsubstantiated, like-minded parallelism to 
other DEs or the elder Blacks.

OTOH, there is concrete evidence that Reggie ended up as an anti-
Voldemort advocate. That he went to the cave with the intent of 
dying, witness both his note in the locket and his instructions to 
Kreacher, puts the lie to any further selfish motivations on his 
part. I don't know that Reggie was truly likeable, but I'm confidant 
that he is absolved of any nasty tendencies, in the end.

Mike