What HP Character Scares You Most?

[pippin_999]

No: HPFGUIDX 191913


> Nikkalmati
> 
> As the story unfolded the number of readers disturbed by DD's character increased, i suspect.  I am not talking about decisions that could be attributed to "in war, generals have to make hard choices" kind of decisions, or indications of weakness of character or even childhood mistakes, but more sinister types of decisions.   I will list some.  1. Some were disturbed by his leaving Harry at the Dursleys' or failing to check up on him to be sure he was all right.  2.  As far as we can tell Sirius Black was never punished for attempting to sic Remus on Snape.  There is an air of injustice in sweeping the whole incident under the rug even though Snape could have been bitten and Remus would have been expelled or worse.  In addition, through an inquiry the fact that the Mauraders were unregistered antimagi might have come out.  3. He failed to question Sirius after the Potters' deaths to be sure he was guilty.   He abandoned Sirius to the "legal" system.

Pippin:

If Dumbledore should have protected Sirius from the "legal" system when he was arrested for the deaths of the Muggles, then why was it wrong for him to protect Harry, Draco, Lupin and Snape, not to mention Sirius when he set Snape at Lupin?  It seems to me that for some readers what seems to be a moral issue is really a partisan one -- Dumbledore is not wrong for interfering or failing to interfere with the law, but only for doing so on behalf of someone who, in the eyes of a particular reader, didn't deserve it. 

I think the moral issue for Dumbledore is whether interfering will protect the lives of innocent people. He does not assume that the law, or those who enforce it, will always act on behalf of the innocent, nor does he have any confidence in the ability of what passes for due process in the wizarding world to determine who is guilty and who is not. His own ability to do so is not perfect and Sirius is the proof of that. But his record is better than the Ministry's. 

Nikklamatai
 4.  When Snape, a boy just out of achool and clearly distraught and terrified, came to meet DD to ask him to protect Lily,  DD took the opportunity to extract from Snape a promise of obedience in return for an action (protecting his own order members), which DD was obliged to do anyway. 

Pippin:
Where do you get the idea that Dumbledore was obliged to protect Order members from Voldemort? Their job was to put themselves in harm's way if necessary in order to protect others. A general shouldn't waste the lives of his troops. But that's a far cry from promising to make sure one in particular is not going to be killed by the enemy. 

 5.  When Lily died and Snape was again distraught, DD extracted another promise from Snape which amounted to an oath to follow DD's orders in order to protect Harry. 

Pippin:
It wasn't an unbreakable vow: and presumably Snape was not under duress in all the years he chose to keep it. Snape had many opportunities to leave Hogwarts, in fact he did leave it every summer. If he had chosen to disappear, probably Voldemort could have tracked him down, but I don't think Dumbledore or the Ministry could have done it. There was indeed duress involved, but it was the obligation placed on every Death Eater of a lifetime of service or death, and Snape brought that on himself.

 6.  DD didn't tell Snape that Harry would have to die by LV's hand whenever it was he first knew it, but let Snape continue thinking he was acting to protect Lily's son.

Pippin:
Now this, I think, was indeed selfish and cowardly, and carried the underlying presumption that Snape's interests did not matter one way or the other. Dumbledore had come to take Snape's cooperation for granted. 

Pippin