#hp morality

[wisteria-lodge]

Re Snape and being a spy, I was always so so baffled that after Dumbledore exposed Snape as his spy, Voldemort was arrogant enough to take Snape back.

Because of course he would never. After Voldemort killed Lily, too? Lol. Lmao, even. Snape would have become the first name in the burn book. Undesirable №0.

And if it meant that Voldemort would never ask Snape to come back, that would mean that Dumbledore IS actually merciful, that he does actually understand how grooming works and for real saved Snape, and gave him his second chance. Which of course would make Dumbledore a fundamentally good person, and not like, whatever JKR writes.

I was always very... unsure on what JKR actually thinks good is. Because, well. Sometimes she writes someone being righteous, and doing very, very dubious shit. No one ever said "Hermione, kidnapping is bad" or "Hermione, erasing the memories of your parents is bad", or even "However bad Umbridge was, that scene is written as angry men kidnapping a woman and then her being returned traumatized from,,,,, SOMETHING".

It's fine when Hagrid makes fun of Dudley for being fat, but it's not fine when Draco makes fun of Mrs. Weasley for being fat. It's fine for Arthur to "get off" Ludo Bagman's brother after he gets in trouble, and get 10 expensive top-box tickets out of it. But Fudge doing "favors" for Lucius after he... donates money to St. Mungos... now that's unacceptable.

JKR's view of morality is that there are good people and bad people, and that if you're a good person your actions are by definition good. It's why she's so interested in mechanisms to sort out the good people - the Sorting Hat putting people into Gryffindor, and now the Qilin picking out the most worthy King Wizard. Occasionally a Good person will be tempted off the Good Path because of a Bad influence (ie - Snape falling under the thrall of his pureblood buddies and then snapping back to center, Dumbledore falling in with of Grindelwald and then repenting, Percy becoming enamored with the Ministry... etc.)

JKR also seems to really, really dislike arrogance. Lockhart, Lucius, Draco, Percy... and Voldemort is the most arrogant of them all. Him trusting Snape is definitely an example of him being extremely stupid... but his inflated sense of his own grandeur, his own importance, that's totally been set up. Also, clearly the guy does not have a great understanding of the intricacies of romantic relationships.

“He desired her, that was all,” sneered Voldemort, “but when she had gone, he agreed that there were other women, and of purer blood, worthier of him —”

If I wanted to get psychological about this, I'd say that Voldemort doesn't think about his relationships in terms of love (i mean, dumbledore thinks he loves the snake but that's neither here nor there) but in terms of whether people are WORTHY of him or not. Wormtail is objectively extremely effective... but he's not worthy, based on whatever set of criteria Voldemort has in his head. Voldemort/Bellatrix and Voldemort/Barty jr. (I see it) absolutely feature Bellatrix and Barty doing some very extreme things to prove themselves worthy of him. So it's not surprising that Voldemort lands on that word when talking about Snape's potential rebound.

Especially because Voldemort absolutely has experience with people desiring him, physically. (DEFINITELY Hepzibah Smith, and there's no way she was the first. Tom is playing the part of the Charmer on purpose.) So on some level, I'll buy that he just thinks that's what love is.

Where we get into potential plotholes is with legilimency. Dumbledore and Voldemort can still read minds, and still they both think Snape is working for them. Either Snape is able to construct false memories for them to look at... or maybe if a occulumens is good enough you just can't read their mind, even if they want you too. Except *Harry* can read Snape's mind? Is he just Anakin Skywalker levels of powerful? (I mean, maybe.) But then does that also means that DRACO'S occlumency is good enough to fool Voldemort?

(the biggest sign that JKR just did not really think the whole legilimency/occlumency thing through... is the detail that Bellatrix taught Draco occlumency. Why would she do that? (especially because at that point she's starting not to trust him.) Even if she did want to, why would Bellatrix - who is an enforcer/berserker type, not stealth, not a spy, not good at/inclined to conceal her emotions... why would she be able to conceal her thoughts? Why would she even WANT to, when her main thing is desperately seeking connection with Voldemort?

[max-nicoxfandom]

I have this scene in my head of a giant DC/batfam crossover where everyone in the batfam inherits Bruce's adoption tendencies and he has no clue what to do about it.

Like one day, the batfam find a homeless Peter Parker, end up doing a DNA test, and bam, it's Dick's son. He's around 14, and has that same sunny disposition as his father. The Wayne family has grown by one and they couldn't be happier.

Except... Jason has been acting weird lately...

At first, it was a little weird because he had been spending more time around the manor to see Peter. And then he stopped. Completely cut contact out of nowhere. Dick confronts him and finds a 16 year old Danny Phantom hiding behind his brother with the brightest, green eyed glare Dicks ever seen.

A month later a French class visits.

It's their last trip of their middle school year before highschool. 17 year old Damian Wayne walks in with a 12 year old Marinette who's small, nervous, and is so smart she skipped a grade. Damian is happy to announce that he has a new daughter.

Bruce promptly chokes on air.

[archie-mp3]

Do people realize that the Marauders are canonically in the wrong for bullying Snape? Or just being bullies in general? Harry James Potter himself called them out on their bad behavior and then sympathized with Snape.

[lines-in-limbo]

I've been mulling over a particular little passage in COS that often goes unnoticed:

“‘A student has been taken by the monster. Right into the Chamber itself!’ Professor Flitwick let out a squeal. Professor Sprout clapped her hands over her mouth. Snape gripped the back of a chair very hard and said, 'How can you be sure?'”

This moment is important because it challenges the misconception that Snape is indifferent to the students physical well-being. We see in the book how Flitwick and Sprout react with audible shock and visible distress, but Snape's response is more subdued yet equally revealing—he tightens his grip on the chair, betraying a palpable tension. It seems like a visceral response, which underscores his genuine concern for the safety of the students under his care. We also see his cautious and analytical nature emerge as he seeks confirmation to the seriousness of the situation.

This scene occurs early in the series and long before any promises made to Dumbledore before his death, which reveals Snape's innate care for his students. It's a very subtle yet powerful clue to his character, that challenges simplistic assumptions about his motivations.

[thebibutterflyao3]

Canon Facts about Regulus Black

**With sources**

Biographical Info: Regulus Arcturus Black, 1961-1979, male, wizard. (OOTP, Ch. 24). Deceased and childless (HBP, Ch. 3).

Personality: Regulus had a sign on his bedroom door, “Do not enter without the express permission of Regulus Arcturus Black,” kept his door locked, and decorated his room with Slytherin’s house colours. The Black family crest was painted over his bed with the motto, “Toujours Pur” beneath it (DH, Ch. 10). He is described as “a fan” “proud, happy to serve” Voldemort, “proper” with the “dignity of his pure blood,” “haughty,” “brave,” “kind” to Kreacher, “trying to protect” his family, (DH, Ch. 10) “stupid idiot” for becoming a Death Eater, a “much better son,” “soft enough to believe” his parents, and “panicked” (OOTP, Ch. 24).

Was Regulus Black a pureblood? Yes, he was the youngest son of Walburga & Orion Black, younger brother to Sirius Black. The Black family were purebloods (OOTP, Ch 24).

Did Regulus attend Hogwarts? Yes, Slughorn says he was sorted into Slytherin (HBP, Ch. 6) and he played quidditch as Slytherin’s Seeker (DH, Ch. 6).

Was Regulus a pureblood supremacist? Yes. He was raised with the belief that pureblood wizards were superior to all others. Sirius says his parents had “pure-blood mania” and Regulus was “soft enough to believe them” (OOTP, Ch 24).

Did Regulus support Voldemort? Yes. According to Kreacher, Regulus talked about Voldemort’s plan to “bring wizards out of hiding to rule the muggles and the muggle-borns” and joined the Death Eaters at 16 years old (DH, Ch. 10). Hermione found old newspaper clippings about Voldemort pinned to Regulus’s wall (DH, Ch. 6).

What was asked of Regulus as a Death Eater? The only task we know Regulus did as a Death Eater was to volunteer Kreacher when Voldemort said he needed an elf, one year after he joined, believing it was “an honour for him and for Kreacher,” but insisting Kreacher “come home” afterwards (DH, Ch. 10).

What changed? Kreacher told Regulus what Voldemort forced him to do in the cave and how Voldemort left him behind to die in the water, which really upsets Regulus (DH, Ch. 10).

Did Regulus care about house-elves? Yes. Kreacher said “Master Regulus always liked Kreacher,” was “very, very concerned” when he came back poisoned, and drank the potion himself in the cave rather than give it to Kreacher a second time (DH, Ch. 10). In addition, part of Kreacher’s battle cry at the Battle of Hogwarts is “fight the Dark Lord, in the name of brave Regulus!” (DH, Ch. 36).

How did he defect? Sirius found out after his brother’s death that Regulus “panicked” and attempted to quit the Death Eaters when he discovered what he was expected to do, but couldn’t because “it’s a lifetime of service or death” (OOTP, Ch. 24). This implies Regulus didn’t know it was a lifetime commitment or that he would be expected to hurt people. We don’t know exactly at what point this panic happened, but Remus said that Regulus was killed a few days after his defection (HBP, Ch 6).

When Kreacher returned from his trip with Voldemort, Regulus ordered him to stay in hiding, then left. He returned “strange, not as he usually was, disturbed in his mind” (DH, Ch. 10). Shortly afterwards, he tells Kreacher to take him back to the cave. Regulus orders Kreacher to swap the necklaces, destroy the original, leave without him, and never tell his family what he’s done. He then drinks the potion himself and experiencing the psychological torture, before he is dragged into the lake by the inferi (DH, Ch. 10). His note to Voldemort shows that he is prepared to die in this endeavour in hopes someone else can finish what he started.

Why did he defect? In his letter to Voldemort, Regulus states his purpose is to make Voldemort vulnerable to death, so that when he “meets his match,” he will be mortal and able to be killed (HBP, Ch. 28). Kreacher’s abuse at Voldemort’s hands seems to be a trigger, but we do not know exactly what happened or how much time transpired between Kreacher’s return from the cave and Regulus’s appearing “disturbed in the mind” sometime later (DH, Ch. 10). Based on the fact that Regulus’s letter mentions the “horcrux” by name and he knows what it does, his claim that “it was I who discovered your secret” implies he researched horcruxes by himself and his reaction was horror at what he learned (HBP, Ch. 28).

[ebenelephant]

thinking again about jk rowling being a bad writer. like, we all know about the massive flaws in her worldbuilding and i hope by now it's clear she's a bigot on basically every front. (hello, regular reminder that she doesn't even actually like women.) but like. she's especially good at dropping bits of lore and then those not being relevant in the fucking slightest. riddle was told to go home to his orphanage in london during what would have very much been the blitz? whatever. the weasley's are so strapped for cash that they're sending their son to school with a potentially dangerous broken wand? of course they're spending their lottery winnings on visiting their adult son in egypt, what else would they do. snape grew up in what was likely a dying northern industrial town with abusive/neglectful parents, largely cut off from the magical world? almost impressed you caught on to that, with how little it's expanded on. yes hermione has a supposedly good relationship with both her parents, no we're not going to show you it at all, yes she's going to wipe they're memories like it's nothing. lily evans is the moral compass of james and basically the most important person in the series but fuck you if you want to actually know anything about her lmao. even what little we see is wildly inconsistent.

[foursaints]

the real tragedy of many sirius black stannies being unwilling to engage with anything but a completely positive read of him (besides being a neutered & ineffectual mode of engaging with media in general, but i digress…) is that it has such a flattening effect on sirius’s character!! god forbid he be complicated in any instance!! for example, i got backlash for jokingly calling sirius “useless” in ootp when, in fact, his perceived ineffectuality during the second wizarding war is a very real experience that he grapples with on the page! you are neglecting his textual conflicts in your rush to defend your fave.

also, like. if that is the case then how is anyone supposed to mention, say, that sirius is deeply developmentally stunted after 12 years in azkaban and his character is a fascinating case study in prolonged adolescence. this is an insanely compelling part of his character which impacts all his interpersonal dynamics and is subject to so much frequent erasure!! <- he is not your “blorbo” that is a grown man whose defining relationship in the text is a highly troubling & irresponsible pseudo-paternal attachment to a vulnerable 15 year old boy. and that is so awesome

[moonagedaydreamsofrhiannon]

MARAUDERS FANS LET JAMES POTTER BE A LITTLE BIT OF A CUNT PLEASE

[silverbriseis]

99% of tomarrymort antis are so hilarious like whenever theyre complaining about how ""bad"" and ""immoral"" the ship is, they always point to the age difference and not... the murders😭😭😭 Tom literally murders Harrys parents and orphans him, attempts to murder everyone he knows then tries to take over the wizarding world all while ALSO attempting to murder him— so I feel like there's a very more obvious pressing issue here then their unrealistic age gap😭😭😭It's like those ppl complaining about hannigram and making top 10 lists about how problematic it is yet the fact that Hannibal is a cannibal and murderer never made it onto the lists😭😭😭

[miraculouslbcnreactions]

Re: more eat the rich

It comes down, I think, to a particular moral framework that TA seems to ascribe to. JK Rowling is another good example. There's a name for it.. it might be Calvinist?

Basically: The problem isn't having rich people, it's having the *wrong* rich people. You're not a part of an exploitative system that concentrates wealth, you're a *bad rich person*.

The same lens is used for everything else. Nothing is actually systemic. The *system* can't be questioned, only individual actors within the system can be called out as bad at fulfilling their role.

If you use this lens to examine other points in ML that seem weird, I think you'll find they suddenly seem more coherent.

Now- this approach is patently wrong on it's face, but that never stopped people from believing in anything, ever.

(Post that spawned this ask)

The word you're looking for is probably "neoliberalism" and I've noticed it, too! I haven't mentioned it because JK Rowling and her works have become such an upsetting topic for many fans and former fans, but Miraculous absolutely matches Harry Potter's concerning messaging about people being the issue, not the system. The system is inherently good and should not be questioned. I hated that as a kid because I was an avid reader and this wasn't how this kind of story was supposed to go! Why wasn't anything being fixed? Why weren't the inequalities being address? Why weren't the slaves being set free? What is this mess? Don't show me a broken system if you're not going to fix it!!!

If anyone is curious about this world view, I'll give you a video essay on the topic of why Harry Potter is just like that. It's about JK Rowling's political views and how it's reflected in her books which does indeed match Miraculous with things like systems being inherently good and people falling into the categories of "good" and "bad" based on their world view or "team alignment" instead of their actions. The last one really shows up in Miraculous as you can see with the redemption nonsense. Nathalie is inherently good so we welcome her to the good side with no effort required. Chloe is inherently bad so redemption is impossible. Marinette is inherently good so her being mean to Kagami is no big deal. Chloe is inherently bad so her being mean to Marinette in similar ways is horrifically wrong. Really depressing way to view the world.

There are other similarities, too. I'm going to have the video start at the part where it really dives into the neoliberalism stuff, but I encourage you to rewind to the start and watch the hour before that part as it's still relevant to this discussion. Pretend it's about Miraculous and you'll be shocked how many matches there are! It's honestly kind of fun. Like there's a section that talks about time travel and how it was solved by just removing time travel from the universe in an incredibly forced manner and a section that talks about the house elves thing that you could easily port over when talking about the Kwamis. I think about the Kwamis' being slaves a lot. It's a lot more subtle than HP, but it's still there with things like Su-Han talking about how it's bad that Plagg is out of the box since he's supposed to be locked away forever apparently. A line that's played like a joke not an indication that a freedom movement is needed. Nooroo is the only Kwami whose enslavement is a problem because he has a bad master. The other kwamis being slaves is fine for some reason...

[sevlilyyey]

"we need more morally grey characters" y'all couldn't even handle severus snape and albus dumbledore

[fafodill]

Snape is a textbook example of ‘good but not nice’.

He’s more good than virtually all the characters the fandom recognise as good, because he sacrifices everything in order to protect those who do not love him and who would not do the same for him.

After his defection, he’s really not grey at all. Even *before* his defection, the worst crimes we actually see on page are using a slur (as someone who has a muggle parent and is therefore part of the marginalised community) while being assaulted against a girl who goes on to marry the abuser and passing on a scrap of a vague prophecy from Trelawney, who nobody takes seriously. But because he’s so morally unlucky, these actions have dire consequences, while somebody like Lupin who actually does a fair bit worse in full knowledge of the potential consequences of his actions gets away scot free because he’s lucky enough that Sirius turns out not to be a deranged mass murderer.

And what is grey after he defects doesn’t come from being an unfair meanie of a teacher - JKR definitely doesn’t think so, because if she did she wouldn’t have written Harry defeating the ultimate evil using a spell Snape taught him - but from what he might’ve been complicit in as a means to a good end (ie. the implication that on Dumbledore’s orders he gave up Emmeline Vance to Voldemort to cement his position as a trusted source, the fact that he couldn’t work to deradicalise his young Slytherins likes Draco, Crabbe, Pansy etc because he’d risk his cover)

You make really good points anon.

Like I said previously, people want to dislike Snape. Being a spy is horrible work and he must have seen and done terrible things and got really hurt by it. We are missing depictions of him breaking down from the choices he had to make, the people he had to see getting tortured or maimed or killed, especially during the second war. That man was holding on to occlumency for dear life to not just break down and ugly cry at night alone in his bed. And maybe he did.

But since we don't see his remorse written on page (why would we? It would mean that Harry sees it) then it doesn't exist to people. Snape's character needs critical thinking and empathy to be understood and most people just don't bother.

I would like to add that I suspect Severus to have been unable to appear as a 'good guy'. We know Dumbledore scolded him when he didn't want to reveal to people his true motivations.

Of course it was partly because his story with Lily was deeply private to him but I also think he had been ostracized so long during his life that he couldn't bring himself to be anything else at that point. It would have made his skin crawl to have those people - those who always judged him and despised him without ever trying to really know him (not that he made it easy either we can agree on that) - suddenly become nice to him. What a bunch of hypocrites he would have thought. He didn't owe them any explanation, he was doing what was right and that's it.

And the same thing happens with the reader.

[pandorasgirlfriend]

Regulus Black

[juniperpyre]

in my head lily and james are the perfect heteronormative couple, in the sense that they are doing a m/f relationship the very best, healthiest way possible, while not transgressing gender roles to the extent either of them would be, in greater society, be considered gender non-conforming.

they are true partners, but, completely authentically to their personalities, james is a protector, it's a key part of his identity, and lily is kind and understanding (to a fault) and it's a key part of her character. and those are like. part of their gender roles, too.

[lines-in-limbo]

I’m absolutely fed up with having to defend any positive thing I say about Snape. Every time I acknowledge his significant contributions, people rush in with, “But he bullied children,” as if that one fact erases everything else he did. Yes, I know he was nasty to students. So what? His behavior doesn’t cancel out the immense sacrifices he made or the critical role he played in the war.

It’s exhausting to repeatedly clarify my opinion of him and that Snape can’t be labeled as simply good or evil—no human can. He was deeply flawed but still made substantial contributions. His wrongs don’t erase his heroism, just as his heroism doesn’t excuse his wrongs. They coexist. If you dislike him, that’s your prerogative, but stop pretending his faults are some sort of ultimate argument. They aren’t. If you can’t understand that, then you can stick your opinions where the sun doesn’t shine, because I’m done listening to you.

[360degreesasthecrowflies]

JKR's characters don't all believe the same thing, but she is definitely a major example of an author whose values STRONGLY influence the stories. We can all firmly guess about the things JKR values now that the series is done, and we probably could have done so even without any interviews from her. I think the big problem with the Potterverse is that her values come across not just in Harry's perception of events, but in the actions of the people and the world around him. If it was just Harry's perception, then I think it could be easier to challenge Harry's/the Order/etc. viewpoint in fanfiction, because if they themselves were the reference for what values were good/bad, this could be easily challenged. But JKR's values are so ingrained into the story that there is comparatively little wiggle room between her values and the actual characters, because said characters specifically act in ways that reflect her values. To use Percy as an example, I feel that the Weasleys should also have apologized to Percy (he's been used as their scapegoat for so long), but that didn't happen. Yeah, middle of a battle and all, but still, presumably JKR (probably like the Weasleys) didn't feel like the things his family did to him were that big a deal. Percy is the only one who apologized to them... I find it hard to believe that JKR's Fred and George would find anything necessary to apologize for, or even that Percy would think they did. I mean, Fred's last words to Percy were basically "Omg, you have a sense of humour!" -- the hidden message, to me, seemed to basically be "Does that mean you find all our pranks on you funny now?", like he and George were in the right all along. JKR tends to make her points through the way the characters act, rather than how others perceive the way they're acting.

via another archived blog post on SisterMagpie's LiveJournal, discussing 'An Author's Morals' & fanfiction, Sept. 2007