Draco's Allegiance

[terri-testing.livejournal.com]

God, I feel an idiot. When I was writing "Protean Charm" I looked very carefully at evidence for Draco's having started working against the Dark Lord. But I totally missed the biggest clue of all.



When the Trio, Dean, and Griphook were thrown into the basement of Malfoy Manor, Luna used a nail to untie the new prisoners.

And Draco fully expected her to.

When Draco was sent to fetch the goblin, he ordered the captives, "Stand back. Line up against the back wall. Don't try anything or I'll kill you!"

He expected them to be free, not tied together in a clump. And sure enough, they were; he was able to seize "the little goblin by the arm and back[] out again, dragging Griphook with him" without untying him first.

And he didn't warn his fellow Death Eaters that the prisoners were unbound, or cast Incarcereous on them to remedy the matter.

For that matter, how did Luna get hold of that conveniently large nail, anyhow? It's a weapon as well as a tool.

Comments

[corycides.livejournal.com]

My point?

That having a tout gave Dumbledore's side an immeasurable advantage in the fight against the Death-eaters. He would have been a criminally negligent fool not to take full advantage of that situation. More people on his side would be saved by squeezing all the use of Snape he could.

That's what you do with informers.

Harsh? Yes, but necessary. And Snape had made his bed when he joined the Death-eaters - no matter whether the decision was informed or something he only came to when he realised what the cost was - so he was just going to have to lie it at that point.

Not entirely sure what your point is with the Nazis is though? Are you comparing Snape to Schindler? Because a: indulging in a bit of hyperbole there and b: I didn't condemn Snape for not realising exactly what he'd signed on for, just said that as far as moral high ground went at that point he was on shaky ground.

[oryx_leucoryx]

The point is that normal people treat those who repent with admiration, not scorn. In Judaism at least, a repentant person is considered to be on a higher moral ground than a completely righteous one.

There was a debate among rabbis why in Genesis it says "Noah was in his generations a man righteous and whole-hearted" - why 'in his generations'? The common view was that Noah would have been considered righteous in his generation but not in other times, when people were less sinful. But Resh Lakish, who himself spent some time as a gladiator (and some say a bandit) before returning to scholarship, said that if Noah was righteous in his very sinful generation then he'd have found it easier to be righteous in other times.