Is Snape good? If not, will he come back to the good side? v4

I was just saying that is an awfully big favor to ask of Snape. I don't believe that even DD would kill Snape if the situations was reversed because of what it means in the wizarding world to kill. So I couldn't see DD expecting the same of Snape. As far as the self defence killing goes it is still killing. The only difference is that he would have no other choice other then to die himself.

That was, of course, precisely Snape's situation, though Dumbledore was not the cause of it.

However alas this is all just my opinion, yours is no less valid than mine. So each to their own. :whistle:

Yes, what matters is not your opinion or mine, but Rowling's opinion. We'll know in six more months...:D

That was, of course, precisely Snape's situation, though Dumbledore was not the cause of it.



Yes, what matters is not your opinion or mine, but Rowling's opinion. We'll know in six more months...:D


True... True... darn time and its tortuous ways. :grumble:

I have a new question for everyone as well. Why, if Snape was working for Voldemort, was the only memories he hid from Harry in OotP memories of what Harry's parents did to him???

The answer is simple, becuase he had nothing to hide. He is not a Death Eater, if he was he would want to hide those away from Harry, but he didnt, he left quite a bit about his backstory in his head for all to see, but nothing even closely implied he was a Death Eater.

Just another thought

I have a new question for everyone as well. Why, if Snape was working for Voldemort, was the only memories he hid from Harry in OotP memories of what Harry's parents did to him???

The answer is simple, becuase he had nothing to hide. He is not a Death Eater, if he was he would want to hide those away from Harry, but he didnt, he left quite a bit about his backstory in his head for all to see, but nothing even closely implied he was a Death Eater.

Just another thought

Yes but Snape constantly underestimates Harry. It could have also been that he didn't think Harry could get access to his memories. Another thing about that scene was that when Harry did get into snapes mind(which I think proves hedidn't think Harry could get into his mind) Harry accessed some very embarassing memories of Snape....so he didn't take all of his personal memories out...lastly we have no idea what memories he did take out of his head. Harry accessed the one memory but as snape took out more than one there is no definite proof he didn't remove memories of Voldemort.

I do agree with you though there is a good chance that Snape is good, but there is an equally good chance that he has been a spy as well.

I'm almost certain that most Aurors and Order members have killed before.I think generally wizards and witches have other means (spells) to incapacitate an opponent. For example they could stun or use the Petrificus Totalus. But we know that - during the first war - the Ministry had specifically allowed the Aurors to use Unforgivable Curses (I think Fake-Moody tells the class in GoF). Therefore, under certain circumstances, the use of UCs can be legitimate. But I highly doubt this case can be seen as such.

Perhaps for the same reason she also wrote this, one chapter earlier (emphasis added):


"...don't like...wamt to stop..." moaned Dumbledore.
"You...you can;t stop, Professor," said Harry. "You've got to keep drinking, remember? You told me you had to keep drinking. Here..."
Hating himself, repulsed by what he was doing, Harry forced the goblet back towards Dumbledore's mouth and tipped it, so that Dumbledore drank the remainder of the potion inside.


Because we are not told Snape's thoughts and feelings (we do get to read Harry's) we cannot know at who or what Snape's hatred and revulsion were directed. But it certainly could be at himself and the task Dubmledore was asking him to perform.I always liked this argument, but it could of course be some kind of mirror-moment, like the ones JKR likes to use, to contrast two very different situations.

There is a distinction which can be made between killing and murder. Killing a dying man, at that dying man's request, is quite different from a cold-blooded murder. In some places, it is even legal.Sure, but I doubt we can lable what Snape does as some kind of euthanasia. I do think Dumbledore was already dying. He knew he wouldn´t be around for much longer. His priorities were to teach Harry everything about Tom Riddle/LV and the Horcruxes. In the whole UV/Draco mess, he came up with a plan to save Draco. I guess there was some kind of loophole for Snape not to have to kill DD in order not to die from the effects of the Vow, but the agreement between DD and Snape could have involved the option that - came push to shove - Snape had to kill DD. Then something happened they could not foresee, Draco helped DEs invade Hogwarts. And push came to shove.

In other words just walk up to him and use the Advera Kavera ( I know I probably butchered the spelling).That´s why I always write AK. :cool:

I have a new question for everyone as well. Why, if Snape was working for Voldemort, was the only memories he hid from Harry in OotP memories of what Harry's parents did to him???

The answer is simple, becuase he had nothing to hide. He is not a Death Eater, if he was he would want to hide those away from Harry, but he didnt, he left quite a bit about his backstory in his head for all to see, but nothing even closely implied he was a Death Eater.

Just another thoughtI think it is possible he had already extricated 'compromising' memories from his brain and stored them away. It is possible, IMO, he thought about this special memory last minute so to speak and therefore extricated it in Harry´s presence.

That´s why I always write AK. :cool:

LOL!!! Good point. I will do that in the future.

I think it is possible he had already extricated 'compromising' memories from his brain and stored them away. It is possible, IMO, he thought about this special memory last minute so to speak and therefore extricated it in Harry´s presence.


I agree with you on this Ronjalina. Snape could have cleansed his memory of any incriminating events prior to teaching Harry. At this point however, we just dont have enough information to prove it. But I like the idea.

Well first I want to say that in many ways, I dislike Snape very much. I certainly wouldn't have any regrets if he dies in the final book.

That having been said, I think he is good in the grand scheme of things. While I agree that killing Dumbledore was a terrible thing and definitely a black mark on his soul, I believe the circumstances, more than anything else, are what prompted Snape's actions on the astronomy tower and during his flight from Hogwarts. It seems there are many factors to take into consideration when asking why events transpired the way they did.

First, Dumbledore was weak when he arrived back at the school... possibly even dying. In fact, I feel his only real chance to survive was if he had gotten the right potion from Snape... and quickly. He wouldn't have been much of a match for most of the DE's, especially not outnumbered. Once Dumbledore realised what was happening at the school, I think he knew he couldn't possibly get the potion he needed and would inevitably die one way or the other. I really don't think it was part of Albus' plan to die originally but I think he was aware of the possibility all along.

Next, I don't think Snape had any knowledge of the Vanishing Cabinet and the possibility that Malfoy could actually get DE's into Hogwarts. As we know from earlier in HBP, Snape tries to use legilimency on Draco and comments about how Aunt Bellatrix has been teaching Draco occlumency. So now Snape is faced with a dreadful situation: caught in the middle of his duty to Dumbledore but also bound by an unbreakable vow that states he must protect Draco and ultimately perform Malfoy's task for him if he's unable. I think Dumbledore and Snape had discussed Malfoy's task of trying to kill Albus and both knew that Snape might have to kill Dumbledore in a worst case scenario... which is exactly where they ended up. Keep in mind that by killing the Headmaster, Snape saved his own life, Draco's life and the lives of the Malfoy family. Also, by his actions, Snape basically becomes the leader of the DE's attacking Hogwarts and pretty much immediately orders them to retreat. He may have saved many other lives of students and teachers.

Now as Snape is fleeing from the school, he runs right past all the members of the Order of the Phoenix and Dumbledore's Army. He could easily have turned and attacked them from behind, possibly killing several of them before they even knew what was happening. Instead, he keeps going right past them. Then when he's outside and Harry is trying to catch him and Malfoy, Snape stops. Yes, he does counter several of Harry's spells and even hits him with a couple counter-curses but he seems careful not to hurt Harry badly. He could easily have used sectumsempra or crucio, hurting Harry badly but still leaving him for Voldemort to finish later. Snape's words to Harry in the scene almost seem like he's giving him hints and instructions on how to fight a dark wizard: "Blocked again, and again, and again until you learn to keep your mouth shut and your mind closed, Potter!" Now I ask you, why would Snape be giving Harry advice or instruction in this situation? Is he trying to tell Harry that he'll stand no chance against Voldemort unless he can learn to keep his mind clear and his spells non-verbal, keeping his opponent guessing?

Lastly, Snape stops the huge Death Eater (or maybe it was Amycus or Alecto) from torturing Harry with the crucio curse just before they all retreat. He could very easily have allowed it to continue a bit longer but he chooses to save Harry almost immediately. Granted, he yells at them that Harry is to be left for the Dark Lord, but isn't that exactly what a double-agent would be expected to say?

Yes but Snape constantly underestimates Harry. It could have also been that he didn't think Harry could get access to his memories. Another thing about that scene was that when Harry did get into snapes mind(which I think proves hedidn't think Harry could get into his mind) Harry accessed some very embarassing memories of Snape....so he didn't take all of his personal memories out...lastly we have no idea what memories he did take out of his head. Harry accessed the one memory but as snape took out more than one there is no definite proof he didn't remove memories of Voldemort.

I do agree with you though there is a good chance that Snape is good, but there is an equally good chance that he has been a spy as well.

I think he doesn't underestimate him. I think he doest this to make Voldy underestimate Harry.

I have a new question for everyone as well. Why, if Snape was working for Voldemort, was the only memories he hid from Harry in OotP memories of what Harry's parents did to him???

The answer is simple, becuase he had nothing to hide. He is not a Death Eater, if he was he would want to hide those away from Harry, but he didnt, he left quite a bit about his backstory in his head for all to see, but nothing even closely implied he was a Death Eater.
On the other hand, it is common knowledge that Snape was once a Death Eater, so a glimpse of an old memory wouldn't be all that damning. More interestingly, why would someone who can fend of Lord Voldemort's considerable Legilimency powers feel the need to remove memories in order to hide them from a 15 year old boy with no skill in Legilimency at all?

We didn't see what else Snape put in the Pensieve, though, because he caught Harry before the first memory had ended.

On More interestingly, why would someone who can fend of Lord Voldemort's considerable Legilimency powers feel the need to remove memories in order to hide them from a 15 year old boy with no skill in Legilimency at all?


It seems to me we have our answer within OotP. Harry, in the course of the lessons, is able to break through, when he turns Snape's own Legilimens spell back on him with a Pretego. This could indicate a wizard cannot block himself out, or perhaps that an Occlumency shield cannot be maintained while using Legilimency, or that Harry actually has a considerable gift for Legilimency (possibly derived from the scar, like some other gifts he may have from Voldemort). At any rate, Snape is an expert on both Occlumency and Legilimency, so it is reasonable to suppose he would understand that the possibility exists, since we know it does.

Well first I want to say that in many ways, I dislike Snape very much. I certainly wouldn't have any regrets if he dies in the final book.

That having been said, I think he is good in the grand scheme of things. While I agree that killing Dumbledore was a terrible thing and definitely a black mark on his soul, I believe the circumstances, more than anything else, are what prompted Snape's actions on the astronomy tower and during his flight from Hogwarts. It seems there are many factors to take into consideration when asking why events transpired the way they did.

First, Dumbledore was weak when he arrived back at the school... possibly even dying. In fact, I feel his only real chance to survive was if he had gotten the right potion from Snape... and quickly. He wouldn't have been much of a match for most of the DE's, especially not outnumbered. Once Dumbledore realised what was happening at the school, I think he knew he couldn't possibly get the potion he needed and would inevitably die one way or the other. I really don't think it was part of Albus' plan to die originally but I think he was aware of the possibility all along.

Next, I don't think Snape had any knowledge of the Vanishing Cabinet and the possibility that Malfoy could actually get DE's into Hogwarts. As we know from earlier in HBP, Snape tries to use legilimency on Draco and comments about how Aunt Bellatrix has been teaching Draco occlumency. So now Snape is faced with a dreadful situation: caught in the middle of his duty to Dumbledore but also bound by an unbreakable vow that states he must protect Draco and ultimately perform Malfoy's task for him if he's unable. I think Dumbledore and Snape had discussed Malfoy's task of trying to kill Albus and both knew that Snape might have to kill Dumbledore in a worst case scenario... which is exactly where they ended up. Keep in mind that by killing the Headmaster, Snape saved his own life, Draco's life and the lives of the Malfoy family. Also, by his actions, Snape basically becomes the leader of the DE's attacking Hogwarts and pretty much immediately orders them to retreat. He may have saved many other lives of students and teachers.

Now as Snape is fleeing from the school, he runs right past all the members of the Order of the Phoenix and Dumbledore's Army. He could easily have turned and attacked them from behind, possibly killing several of them before they even knew what was happening. Instead, he keeps going right past them. Then when he's outside and Harry is trying to catch him and Malfoy, Snape stops. Yes, he does counter several of Harry's spells and even hits him with a couple counter-curses but he seems careful not to hurt Harry badly. He could easily have used sectumsempra or crucio, hurting Harry badly but still leaving him for Voldemort to finish later. Snape's words to Harry in the scene almost seem like he's giving him hints and instructions on how to fight a dark wizard: "Blocked again, and again, and again until you learn to keep your mouth shut and your mind closed, Potter!" Now I ask you, why would Snape be giving Harry advice or instruction in this situation? Is he trying to tell Harry that he'll stand no chance against Voldemort unless he can learn to keep his mind clear and his spells non-verbal, keeping his opponent guessing?

Lastly, Snape stops the huge Death Eater (or maybe it was Amycus or Alecto) from torturing Harry with the crucio curse just before they all retreat. He could very easily have allowed it to continue a bit longer but he chooses to save Harry almost immediately. Granted, he yells at them that Harry is to be left for the Dark Lord, but isn't that exactly what a double-agent would be expected to say?

You know as far as arguments go for Snape being good on some level, this is one of the better ones. It is plain and simple. No crazy twists or speculations. Just what really happened, looked at from a different perspective.

I think Dumbledore and Snape had discussed Malfoy's task of trying to kill Albus and both knew that Snape might have to kill Dumbledore in a worst case scenario... which is exactly where they ended up.


I think that one of the discussions was the one overheard by Hagrid. When Harry and Hermione leave the hospital wing with Hagrid after Ron's been poisoned, Hagrid accidentally tells them he overheard Snape and Dumbledore.


Hagrid says that Snape was telling Dumbledore that he didn't want to do it anymore, that Dumbledore took too much for granted. To which Dumbledore replied that Snape had agreed to do it and that was all there was to it. Then Hagrid says that Dumbledore said something about Snape making investigations in his House.

In spite of the Unbreakable Vow, I don't think Snape at the time of making the Vow believed that Dumbledore would ever be in a position to be killed. As time wore on, I think that Snape was feeling like the situation was getting out of control. Not only was Draco not confiding in him, he was avoiding him (not going to Snape's office when summoned). So Snape had no idea what Draco was up to and was effectively in the dark. He had no information with which to make any plans to avoid the inevitable. Such was the case that Snape had to confront Draco outside of Slughorn's party and I think Dumbledore, when he found out, thought that it could have been disastrous. Snape was getting desperate and it was beginning to show.

Dumbledore confronts Snape outside the forest to fortify his resolve. Dumbledore knew all along that Snape would have to kill him. In fact, when Snape shows up on the ramparts and Dumbledore pleads with him, I believe he was pleading for Snape to kill him so the repercussions of Dumbledore remaining alive (i.e., Malfoy family dead, Snape dead AND found out, etc.) would not occur. And the "revulsion and hatred etched in the harsh lines of [Snape's] face" as he's about to kill Dumbledore is because he IS disgusted and he DOES hate Dumbledore for making him do this terrible deed.

How could anyone fake the "revultion and hatred etched in the harsh lines of his face."?:huh: What does Snape have to do to convince you he's evil? Kill Harry?:huh: Because if you gave him half a chance I bet he would.
Snape is evil, always has been always will be.:td:
However, I pitty him, he's not evil without reason. You can't blaim him, entierly.:no:

How could anyone fake the "revultion and hatred etched in the harsh lines of his face."?:huh: What does Snape have to do to convince you he's evil? Kill Harry?:huh: Because if you gave him half a chance I bet he would.

The possbility you ignore is that Snape may well be repulsed by what he has to do. Just as Harry, just a few pages earlier, was repulsed by what he had to do, making Dumbledore finish drinking the potion.

And as for 'half a chance', Snape's had more than a few whole chances.

The most obvious being at the end of HBP, where Snape not only refuses to attack Harry, he even orders the Death Eaters to leave him alone.

You really should think about why Snape, if he is evil, would defend Harry Potter.

The possbility you ignore is that Snape may well be repulsed by what he has to do. Just as Harry, just a few pages earlier, was repulsed by what he had to do, making Dumbledore finish drinking the potion.

And as for 'half a chance', Snape's had more than a few whole chances.

The most obvious being at the end of HBP, where Snape not only refuses to attack Harry, he even orders the Death Eaters to leave him alone.

You really should think about why Snape, if he is evil, would defend Harry Potter.

Why Snape would not kill Harry, whether he is good or evil:

It's clear that Voldemort wants to kill Harry himself.

A loyal Death Eater knows this, and would not kill Harry (evil Snape). Snape, deeply conflicted within himself about his goodness or badness knows this, and would not kill Harry out of pure self-interest (mixed up Snape). Snape pretending to be a DE knows this, and would not kill Harry knowing that NOT killing him still does not blow his cover. (good Snape).

The possbility you ignore is that Snape may well be repulsed by what he has to do. Just as Harry, just a few pages earlier, was repulsed by what he had to do, making Dumbledore finish drinking the potion.

And as for 'half a chance', Snape's had more than a few whole chances.

The most obvious being at the end of HBP, where Snape not only refuses to attack Harry, he even orders the Death Eaters to leave him alone.

You really should think about why Snape, if he is evil, would defend Harry Potter.

I know... also he told him that he had to learn how to do "non-verbal spells and Occlumency" in order to have even half a chance... see my sig for the quote ;), now why would he even bother to do that after he had killed Dumbledore if he was truly evil?

The possbility you ignore is that Snape may well be repulsed by what he has to do. Just as Harry, just a few pages earlier, was repulsed by what he had to do, making Dumbledore finish drinking the potion.

And as for 'half a chance', Snape's had more than a few whole chances.

The most obvious being at the end of HBP, where Snape not only refuses to attack Harry, he even orders the Death Eaters to leave him alone.

You really should think about why Snape, if he is evil, would defend Harry Potter.
Precisely and not only defend him and not hurt him, but save him.

I've never been able to understand why Villain!Snape would save Harry's life in PS! If he hated him as much as it appears why wouldn't he just leave it up to fate--no one would have blamed Snape if Harry had been hurt/killed during the match (well Hermione would have but none would have believed her). Non-action seems the clearest choice for both both Evil and Obscure!Snape.

Has anyone ever heard any satisfying theories to explain this from an evil Snape perspective?

Does Voldemort know that Snape saved Harry's life in first year? From his discssion at Spinner's End it seems Tom only knows that he didn't kill him, and that he confronted Quirrel about the stone.

I've never been able to understand why Villain!Snape would save Harry's life in PS! If he hated him as much as it appears why wouldn't he just leave it up to fate--no one would have blamed Snape if Harry had been hurt/killed during the match (well Hermione would have but none would have believed her). Non-action seems the clearest choice for both both Evil and Obscure!Snape.
There is a theory that claims Snape is out for himself, rather than a loyal supporter of either Dumbledore or Voldemort. He needs Harry to grow up safely and defeat Voldemort so that Snape can become the next Dark Lord!!!!! :elaugh: While I don't support the whole theory, there might be something in it. Snape apparently wants Harry to survive, and since he's known about the Prophecy all along, he might well want Harry to kill Voldemort, without that necessarily making Snape a good person or loyal to Dumbledore. He might be using them all ... :err:

With regard to Snape saving Harry during his first year (or even maybe the next couple years) you can make arguments for both Snape being good or evil.

1)If Snape is good then it's pretty simple. He's on Dumbledore's side, he's trying to prevent Voldemort's return and Dumbledore would have wanted him to save Harry... possibly even instructed him to watch out for Harry.

2)If Snape is evil then we get our answer from Snape's conversation with Narcissa and Bellatrix in Spinner's End. He tells them that he didn't kill Harry when he entered Hogwarts because it would have given him away to Dumbledore and exposed him as a spy for the Dark Lord. Further to this, he mentions that there were rumours circulating about Harry actually being a very powerful dark wizard himself... possibly a successor to Voldemort around whom the DE's could rally. So for that reason, it would explain why Snape would want to save Harry early on, even if he was evil the whole time.

I don't know if Snape's evil or good and I don't know either if Snape is going to come back to the good side. I know that Snape didn't do anything evil since he left Voldemort's side until Spinners End but it doesn't mean he is good! It was just a mask...
I agree with Susan Bones 111. If Snape is a Death Eater he is a bad guy...


I agree:p

snape will always be evil in my books.

snape will always be evil in my books.

snape will always be evil in my books.

There is a theory that claims Snape is out for himself, rather than a loyal supporter of either Dumbledore or Voldemort. He needs Harry to grow up safely and defeat Voldemort so that Snape can become the next Dark Lord!!!!! :elaugh: While I don't support the whole theory, there might be something in it. Snape apparently wants Harry to survive, and since he's known about the Prophecy all along, he might well want Harry to kill Voldemort, without that necessarily making Snape a good person or loyal to Dumbledore. He might be using them all ... :err:
:wince: yeeaaahhh....I've heard this theory around. It just seems so improbably, anti-climactic to me.

A Dark Lord needs followers! Right? Unless he's going to Imperio the whole country. At school Tom charmed and coaxed "friends" to his way of thinking--he was persuasive, likeable, poster boy for smooth ambition. Snape, on the other hand, is demanding, caustic, sarcastic, rude, and God forbid anyone ever call him charming, lol. Who would follow him? Even his favorite student and godson scorns his guidance! Snape is smart, he would have worked out long ago that drooling devotees aren't in his future, IMO. He'd have to find another way to work out his ambition.

2)If Snape is evil then we get our answer from Snape's conversation with Narcissa and Bellatrix in Spinner's End. He tells them that he didn't kill Harry when he entered Hogwarts because it would have given him away to Dumbledore and exposed him as a spy for the Dark Lord. Further to this, he mentions that there were rumours circulating about Harry actually being a very powerful dark wizard himself... possibly a successor to Voldemort around whom the DE's could rally. So for that reason, it would explain why Snape would want to save Harry early on, even if he was evil the whole time.
I don't buy this either. If Snape is evil then all the hatred he shows Harry (and the trio, and Gryffs in general) is genuine and not an act. Could Snape truly bow before the young son of James Potter and claim him as his Lord? :no: Completely OOC

Has anyone ever heard any satisfying theories to explain this from an evil Snape perspective?



I dont think that he's evil, but I think he's a complex guy and has made some hard to understand desicions. I do think that he killed Dumbledore on his vow and LV's orders, but I dont think his AK killed Dumbledore, I think Dumbledore died when he hit the ground. He didn't hate him enough. I think that he has been immersed in the doings of bad people for a long time, but I dont think he is evil at his core. JKR said that any character except LV was redeemable, so that is a sign that Snape could be bad but redeemable.

It seems to me that Snape is a real nasty piece of work but that by itself does not make him evil. I think I'm of the school that he is out to do in Voldemort with or without Harry. He will end up helping Harry because they both want the same things and maybe even for some of the same reasons. ( the death of Harry's mother)
I believe Dumbledor and the fact that he trusted Snape. But trusting Snape to help do away with Voldemort and keep Harry alive in the process doesn't exactly make him good either.

It appears that all along he has been been in the middle telling each side just about all he knew about the other. Enough maybe to keep from having his mind searched because everything he did tell them checked out. Maybe he and Unbridge should get together.

It appears that all along he has been been in the middle telling each side just about all he knew about the other. Enough maybe to keep from having his mind searched because everything he did tell them checked out. Maybe he and Unbridge should get together.

that definitly sounds plausible.
Snape being just evil or good has always been too simple. If he's good, super duper noble guy good, which he'd have to be to follow this whole elaborate plan, thats just boring. He'd be too uncomplicated and unconflicted. If he's pure evil, LV's most loyal servant, same deal. He is already the most talked about character, it'd be a shame if it were that easy. He is more complex than that, I think he is unsure of what side he is really on, and a good enough occlulemens to keep both sides happy. Since both Snape and LV are half bloods and had unhappy childhoods, I do think Snape feels a certain amount of connection or loyalty to him. BUt i cant imagine anyone with an ounce of good not being somewhat loyal and connected to Dumbledore after working closely with him for 15 years.

i don't know if anyone has mentioned this or not, but i haven't seen it before, but...

if Snape really was on Voldemort's side, wouldn't Lupin be dead?
i mean Snape knew for a fact that he was a spy,
and isn't that some pretty good information to give to Voldemort?

i don't know if anyone has mentioned this or not, but i haven't seen it before, but...

if Snape really was on Voldemort's side, wouldn't Lupin be dead?
i mean Snape knew for a fact that he was a spy,
and isn't that some pretty good information to give to Voldemort?
True, good point.

He hated Lupin, maybe not with the ferocity that he hated James and Sirius but still hated him. He caused him to lose his job. I'm sure he could easily share a bit of info here or there and throw Lupin's cover without alerting the Order to his deviance.

I think Snape should stay on the dark side so harry can finally finish him off!!!

i don't know if anyone has mentioned this or not, but i haven't seen it before, but...

if Snape really was on Voldemort's side, wouldn't Lupin be dead?
i mean Snape knew for a fact that he was a spy,
and isn't that some pretty good information to give to Voldemort? Lupin was operating under Dumbledore's orders to try and recruit the werewolves to the good side. Snape was very careful not to make Dumbledore question his loyalty. He could not risk exposure by betraying Lupin. Now that Snape has killed Dumbledore, things could change dramatically. It is too early to tell what Snape will do with his information on the Order. Book 7 should answer the question.

i don't know if anyone has mentioned this or not, but i haven't seen it before, but...

if Snape really was on Voldemort's side, wouldn't Lupin be dead?
i mean Snape knew for a fact that he was a spy,
and isn't that some pretty good information to give to Voldemort?

True enough. That's a good point, but there are so many like them. I'm a strong believer that Snape is innocent. Saying he is bad is an insult to Dumbledore's memory.

Lupin was operating under Dumbledore's orders to try and recruit the werewolves to the good side. Snape was very careful not to make Dumbledore question his loyalty. He could not risk exposure by betraying Lupin. Now that Snape has killed Dumbledore, things could change dramatically. It is too early to tell what Snape will do with his information on the Order. Book 7 should answer the question.It didn´t seem to be widely known that Lupin spied on the werewolfs. Snape just might have not known it. I don´t think, although Dumbledore trusted him, that Snape was let in on everything that happened in the Order, for the Order. We just don´t have enough canon to tell if Snape knew it.

After the DE invasion at Hogwarts, Lupin can´t go back to spy on the werewolfs. Greyback has seen him there, fighting on the Order´s side, if I recall correctly.

It didn´t seem to be widely known that Lupin spied on the werewolfs. Snape just might have not known it. I don´t think, although Dumbledore trusted him, that Snape was let in on everything that happened in the Order, for the Order. We just don´t have enough canon to tell if Snape knew it.I agree with this. Besides it would be a wise move for Dumbledore to tell Snape as little as possible. Snape is always in danger of being caught and I don’t doubt that Voldemort has something more as just legimilency to make a perceived enemy talk. The combination of torture, veritaserum and legimilency for instance could be difficult to resist and certainly something Dumbledore couldn’t gamble on. It has nothing to do with trusting Snape but more with not necessarily endanger other people.

I will take another point about Snape using Avada Kedavra. That is a pretty horrible curse to use, more something in Voldemort’s alley. Now if we assume Snape killed on Dumbledore’s orders I ran into this quote:
"You flatter me," said Dumbledore calmly. "Voldemort had powers I will never have."
"Only because you're too -- well -- noble to use them."
Now I happen to think this is true, Dumbledore is too noble to use Voldemort’s methods. Then how can he have sanctioned use of Voldemort’s methods when he asked Snape to perform the avada kedavra?

Sanpe is so my favourite character, so I really hope he's good, but the wind blows both ways.

Bad Snape Evidence
Alright, so. In OotP, Harry gets sucked into the Pensieve, (and totally invades Snape's privacy :grumble: ) and sees Lily, Marauders, and Snape. Do you remember when you were in kindergarten and first couple years of grade school, when, if you were a guy, you pulled a girl's pigtails and pushed her down if you liked her, and, if you were a girl, you stuck out your tongue and stuff? Yeah? Anyway, so when Lily tells james to leave Snape alone, he says he doesn't need help from a Mudblood. She then makes fun of him. Chemistry? Please? I think that Snape had the hugest thing for Lily, and, when she married James, he was really jealous. Lupin says that Snape was jealous of James because of his Quidditch skills, but maybe he was jealous because Lily was his girlfriend. See what i'm sayin'? So Snape hates harry 'cause he's a reminder of James, who took his 'girl.' It could motivate him to join the Death Eaters and go under cover, just to get revenge on James, or his son.

Good Snape Evidence
Dumbledore. Plain and simple. Maybe Harry's not the only one who's Dumbledore's man through and through, eh? The Maruaders were obviously a bunch of little jerks, and Dumbledore doesn't really like jerks. He took Snape under his wing, and Snape, who has a problem with debts of gratitude, (James saving him from Lupin as a werewolf,) wanted to repay Dumbledore. Isn't too much evidence to press his innocence, but there's enough to keep people guessing.

I actually would have thought that Snape's love for Lily was the strongest argument for him being on the good side. I always imagined that when LV fell, and Snape repented his DE ways to DD, and DD believed and trusted him... I always imagined Snape breaking down in DD's office and blubbering about how he loved Lily. (Snape could, of course, trust DD to keep this event in strictest personal confidence, cause everyone knows DD is the kind of guy who would keep his word about something like this no matter what -- hence him NEVER saying WHY he trusts Snape, only that he does).

So it was the presence and capability to LOVE in the heart of mean, nasty Snape that made DD trust him, and believe his repentance to be genuine. AND, this also gives Snape a HUGE motive for revenge vs. LV. I think also the fact that he loved Lily is something he might more easily hide from LV, because love is something LV has no clue about, being completely devoid of it himself. In other words, when probing the mind of Snape to test his loyalty, the last thing he would be looking for is some squishy feelings Snape might have had for a woman now dead.

I actually would have thought that Snape's love for Lily was the strongest argument for him being on the good side. I always imagined that when LV fell, and Snape repented his DE ways to DD, and DD believed and trusted him... I always imagined Snape breaking down in DD's office and blubbering about how he loved Lily. (Snape could, of course, trust DD to keep this event in strictest personal confidence, cause everyone knows DD is the kind of guy who would keep his word about something like this no matter what -- hence him NEVER saying WHY he trusts Snape, only that he does).

So it was the presence and capability to LOVE in the heart of mean, nasty Snape that made DD trust him, and believe his repentance to be genuine. AND, this also gives Snape a HUGE motive for revenge vs. LV. I think also the fact that he loved Lily is something he might more easily hide from LV, because love is something LV has no clue about, being completely devoid of it himself. In other words, when probing the mind of Snape to test his loyalty, the last thing he would be looking for is some squishy feelings Snape might have had for a woman now dead.
I agree :clap:... this is what I think too!! I can't wait to see what happens in book 7!! :clap::rockon:

I actually would have thought that Snape's love for Lily was the strongest argument for him being on the good side.

I think this is a strong argument for snape's goodness, but not nesscessarily being on the good side. I beleive he is currently on the bad side, but his love for lily and the possible sacrifice he will make because of it will redeem him.

Snape is a mastemind. he has orchestrated everything form the start. Or he thinks he has......

Whoever posted that thing about McGonagall Being evil, i hate you. I cant get it out of my head, and now everything she does in the books has an ulterior motive. And I really liked her before.

I am now going to tell you my fang/arm theory. As is has come to be affectionately known (by me). Ok; it is this. Dumbledores look of triumph, after Harry shows him the place where blood was taken from his arm, could be (according to me) because of the fact that the unusual amount of things that have happened to that exact place in his arm. I mean, its the same place that got stabbed by voldemorts pet basilisk, and the same place that fawkes cried on. This may have something to do with it. Also, this theory doesnt factor in alot of recent developments, as I came up with it the day before book five came out. And it also means that Wormtail paid off his debt to Harry for saving his life, which fits nicely.

Oh, and a theory about how to destroy the horcruxes once they are found: harry should eat them, and then get a dementor to suck them out. (Or maybe skip the eating part?)They are pieces of soul, so it should work. Also, there has to be a bigger point to the dementors (I am immediately going to get shot down for this, I know, and everyone will say what? They are such a big part, etc.) and also it would fit with dumbledores 'there are things worse than death' thingy.

IMO Snape is not good and will never be, but there is one thing that always makes me think that he is on Dumbledores side:
He alerted the Order in OotP. In Spinners end his argument is that he helped disposing of Sirius Black, but the prophecy was much more important to Voldemort than the death of a random Ordermember. So if he was on Voldemorts side, why didn't he ignore the cryptic warning of Harry? He couldn't even be blamed by Dumbledore, he only had to say that he didn't understand it. But he alerted the order, which in the end let to the failure of Lucius mission.

I agree with this. Besides it would be a wise move for Dumbledore to tell Snape as little as possible. Snape is always in danger of being caught and I don’t doubt that Voldemort has something more as just legimilency to make a perceived enemy talk. The combination of torture, veritaserum and legimilency for instance could be difficult to resist and certainly something Dumbledore couldn’t gamble on. It has nothing to do with trusting Snape but more with not necessarily endanger other people.Yes, I was thinking along those lines. No strategical leader would tell his supposed double agent each and every detail about what is going on. Lupin spying on the werewolfs would have been considered as classified information.

I will take another point about Snape using Avada Kedavra. That is a pretty horrible curse to use, more something in Voldemort’s alley. Now if we assume Snape killed on Dumbledore’s orders I ran into this quote:
"You flatter me," said Dumbledore calmly. "Voldemort had powers I will never have."
"Only because you're too -- well -- noble to use them."
Now I happen to think this is true, Dumbledore is too noble to use Voldemort’s methods. Then how can he have sanctioned use of Voldemort’s methods when he asked Snape to perform the avada kedavra?Good point. Your logic is unchallangable. I still argue for the 'Snape is on the good side' camp though (not that I am 100% convinced of it, just for the fun).

The situation between PS and HBP has changed dramatically. I mean, Dumbledore instructs Harry on how to defeat LV. And, accoring to the prophecy - 'neither can live while the other survives' - , Harry has to kill LV. Dumbledore confirms that when Harry asks him about it. It could be that, considering the circumstances with the UV and everything, there was no other way than accepting the possibility that a situation might arise when Snape perhaps has to kill Dumbledore.

I think snape is a mastermind. It would not suprise me if he were manipulating every event for his own purpose. I dont think he is either good or evil. He just wants to acheive his ends (but what they may be, who knows? Ultimate power or something equally boring probably) But seriously, I think snape is in a position to overthrow Voldemort even. He is that many steps ahead.
On the other hand, maybe not. Maybe he is a complete moron, who keeps switching sides because he cant decide which one he is better off on. But people are generally smarter and better than they get credit for. Look at Wormtail. I really hate him, but I think he has some good in him. For example, i think he repayed the debt he owed to Harry for (Harry) having savid his (wormtails) life by taking blood from that exact place on Harry's arm. Its the same place that got stabbed by the basilisk, and the same place fawkes cried on. Wormatail would have known about it, seeing as he was at the school in the form of rons pet rat when it happened. It would also explain dumbledores look of triumph when he saw the place that the blood was taken from. Every single character in this book could have an ulterior motive/could be lying/could be double agents. Hopefully they are not, otherwise all this theorizing is just a waste of time.

Although purely evil, i think this is all a plot between Dumbledore and him. Dumbledore will probably brake out of the white tomb in DH and help Harry defeat Voldermort together .

Good point. Your logic is unchallangable. I still argue for the 'Snape is on the good side' camp though (not that I am 100% convinced of it, just for the fun).

The situation between PS and HBP has changed dramatically. I mean, Dumbledore instructs Harry on how to defeat LV. And, accoring to the prophecy - 'neither can live while the other survives' - , Harry has to kill LV. Dumbledore confirms that when Harry asks him about it. It could be that, considering the circumstances with the UV and everything, there was no other way than accepting the possibility that a situation might arise when Snape perhaps has to kill Dumbledore.
Thank you. But all positions on Snape are cemented so it is not likely that anyone but JKR is going to change views on Snape’s position. I’m not sure on Snape’s position (I think he will act for Harry in DH because of the life debt) but I do think that Snape loyal to Dumbledore when he murdered him runs into too much problems.


There is some morality in the books and I do think we are getting carried away if we think that this morality can be overridden for some plot reasons. JKR has all the freedom of the world in her plotting; she could have let Dumbledore die without the use of the murder curse. Murder most horrid is what we are shown and JKR holds very strong views on murder. I’ve seen no indication that she holds the same strong views on any killing. Like self defence and things like that.

But she has made murder the most horrible crime. It is not just the remarks in HBP which shows us that murder is the most horrible crime. In GOF she carefully builds up the unforgivables, with AK as the worst of them all. You just want someone dead when you use the AK, it is the symbol of the total disregard of human life.

JKR could have used other methods to have Snape kill Dumbledore but she used the most horrible of all, one she calls unforgivable with a reason.

It would need a complete redefining of the nature of murder and the nature of the most horrible curse, the killing curse, to make this acceptable. But JKR has built this most horrible crime to show how evil it really is to murder. And AK is really murder at its core: total disregard of life, intent, premeditation, all combined in the curse. She has not created possibilities that it is only unforgivable in certain circumstances, she has been clearer that that: it is unforgivable period.

There has been a lot emphasis on the plot reasons for having Snape kill Dumbledore. We can, or at least a lot of us can, see Snape use the AK for the good. We can even the epitome of goodness, Dumbledore, order the AK for the good. Characters and plot reasons may allow Dumbledore and Snape to use the avada kedavra for the good.

But we are also dealing with JKR’s shown morality and themes. Snape may use the avada kedavra as a force of good but JKR most certainly can’t.

I just can’t see JKR undermining her own message and built up with the use of AK for the good when she could have made Dumbledore die with different means. JKR choose to show us the AK on the tower and that really should settle the whole debate.

It won’t of course; it will once again refocus on hidden plot reasons and hidden loves and anything else what is not on page.

I'm not sure where things lie with Snaotoe quite honest...JKR has him as one of the most complex characters in her books I think and its consequently quite difficult the exact motive for his actions in the books. I have tried hard to look at him objectively to discern whether he is good but you just seem to get all this malice and hate careening off him. His actions to me (and please don't shoot me) seem almost selfish in the earlier books. He only thinks of vindicating himself particularly in PoA.

For the love of DD I hope that he is good and that his actions were all just an act that he had to concieve in order to fulfill the mission that DD entrusted to him. At some level, I do believe that DD death is not n vain and that dear old professor Snape will redeem himself in DH.

Just thought of this..
We have proof that Snape is good..

Now in the 5th book.. Harry gives Snape an extremely cryptic message about where he was going and why he was going there..
Why did Snape let the order know about Sirius and Harry's message if he was not good?
Dumbledore was not around. If asked later all he had to say was that he didnt understand what Harry was trying to say; afterall he is not supposed to knwo that Sirus' is called Padfoot.
Now lets say he let the order know out of fear of what Dumbledor would think why didnt he let Voldmeort know at the same time?
He could have told Voldemort that the order was on their way and Voldemort would have sent more death eaters to batlle the order.
But Snape didnt do that. He just let the order know so that they could go and help Harry and prevent Voldemort from getting the prophecy..
That proves that Snape truly is on the good side..

JKR could have used other methods to have Snape kill Dumbledore but she used the most horrible of all, one she calls unforgivable with a reason.
Are you saying that if Snape had instead used Sectumsempra to kill Dumbledore, then there might be a better chance in your eyes that he might, after all, be trying to act for the good? We know that spell does not require any intrinsically vile intent, since Harry was quite successful in its use all unknowing. Yet, for someone to use it as a way to kill someone, knowing what it does, would seem far more repugnant to most readers, I would imagine, as it would combine killing and torture.

I think in Rowling's world, magic is always a stand-in for something real, something we Muggles can do. The AK is a lethal weapon, no more, no less. A human who deliberately aims a gun at another and shoots to kill, I believe, is not supposed to seem 'better' to us than a wizard who uses an AK. Otherwise, whatever moral conclusions we draw from the story are inapplicable to us.

I just can’t see JKR undermining her own message and built up with the use of AK for the good when she could have made Dumbledore die with different means. JKR chose to show us the AK on the tower and that really should settle the whole debate.

Then why did she put Snape into an apparent Catch-22? That undermines the message right there. If she wanted to show the evil of murder to us, she could have done so far more effectively. She ought to have put Snape in a position where, if he only had the courage to break his Vow and accept the consequences, it would be clear to us readers that Dumbledore would have survived. I mean, perhaps he would have. But making Dumbledore gravely ill, with no other help, wandless, and surrounded by five Death Eaters certainly calls it into question.

It won’t of course; it will once again refocus on hidden plot reasons and hidden loves and anything else what is not on page.

Draco, Harry, the effects of the green potion, and the four Death Eaters are right there on the page, nothing hidden about them. So is Snape's role as a double agent.

Either she sacrificed the moral message you believe she intended to plot/story reasons (to keep the Snape mystery alive for one more book), or she intends that scene to have some other meaning.

I just can’t see JKR undermining her own message and built up with the use of AK for the good when she could have made Dumbledore die with different means. JKR choose to show us the AK on the tower and that really should settle the whole debate.

It won’t of course; it will once again refocus on hidden plot reasons and hidden loves and anything else what is not on page.
But what about Dumbledore's trust in Snape? That wasn't hidden at all, but written over and over and over again. How do you explain that, if Dumbledore "speaks for her?"

There is no reason for Dumbledore to tell Harry again and again that he trusts Snape. He could just as easily say, "I know all about Snape - I've got my eye on him, don't worry."

And even before Harry and Dumbledore know the DEs are on the Tower, Dumbledore is calling for "Severus" and asking Harry to find him. He knows he may not have long to live, yet Snape is the person he is calling for - why?

I believe I know why - Dumbledore knows all about the Vow, and he knows that if Draco seems to fail, then Snape has to "finish" Dumbledore's death. So the reason Dumbledore is calling out for Snape, and then later pleading with him on the Tower, is because he wants Snape to live. So what we are watching is Dumbledore asking to be a sacrifice since he is dying anyway.

Why does Dumbledore have to beg and plead with Snape when Snape clearly knows the consequences of waiting too long? Because Snape would probably rather die than kill Dumbledore, but Dumbledore wants him to live. It's a horrible situation, and I think that's why JKR said she was so upset after writing the end of this book. Not because Dumbledore is dead, but because Snape and Harry - and the readers - have to live with what happened.

But what about Dumbledore's trust in Snape? That wasn't hidden at all, but written over and over and over again. How do you explain that, if Dumbledore "speaks for her?"

There is no reason for Dumbledore to tell Harry again and again that he trusts Snape. He could just as easily say, "I know all about Snape - I've got my eye on him, don't worry."

And even before Harry and Dumbledore know the DEs are on the Tower, Dumbledore is calling for "Severus" and asking Harry to find him. He knows he may not have long to live, yet Snape is the person he is calling for - why?

I believe I know why - Dumbledore knows all about the Vow, and he knows that if Draco seems to fail, then Snape has to "finish" Dumbledore's death. So the reason Dumbledore is calling out for Snape, and then later pleading with him on the Tower, is because he wants Snape to live. So what we are watching is Dumbledore asking to be a sacrifice since he is dying anyway.

Why does Dumbledore have to beg and plead with Snape when Snape clearly knows the consequences of waiting too long? Because Snape would probably rather die than kill Dumbledore, but Dumbledore wants him to live. It's a horrible situation, and I think that's why JKR said she was so upset after writing the end of this book. Not because Dumbledore is dead, but because Snape and Harry - and the readers - have to live with what happened.
Bravo, Bravo silver ink pot!! I agree, why would he even do something like that if he didn't already know that he was already dying/or a dead man? It just makes sense that he would want someone that he trusts "completely" to do that than have him be killed by an enemy in my opinion.

But what about Dumbledore's trust in Snape? That wasn't hidden at all, but written over and over and over again. How do you explain that, if Dumbledore "speaks for her?"

There is no reason for Dumbledore to tell Harry again and again that he trusts Snape. He could just as easily say, "I know all about Snape - I've got my eye on him, don't worry."

Exactly. In full disclosure mode Dumbledore shows no qualms about Snape and expects Harry's 100% trust of himself and Snape. I think if there had ever been a doubt in his mind he would have set some feelers (other Order members to watch for disloyalty).

In addition to Dumbledore's complete trust, I'm further convinced by Snape's assurance in this trust. Look at it from Snape's POV, if I was a spy truly on the side of the Dark Lord would I be insulting other members (Sirius, Remus, Weasley's) and having shadowed interludes with the children of my "supposed enemies" (Draco), would I be constantly putting down my supposed saviour? This is either the height of arrogant stupidity or the snarky response to doing things he doesn't want to do (spy for DD).


I know she won't but I'd love for Jo to answer if Dumbledore would have died on that night if Snape had not been around. Further, if it was in fact Severus Snape's Avada Kedavra curse that killed Dumbledore.

Also, it's a shot in the dark but before we had confirmation that Dumbledore was really dead, there was a theory that Snape said "Avada Kedavra" but non-verbally used another spell. Not likely but I thought I'd throw it out as an option, that Snape killed him but not as it is stated.

Just thought of this..
We have proof that Snape is good..

Now in the 5th book.. Harry gives Snape an extremely cryptic message about where he was going and why he was going there..
Why did Snape let the order know about Sirius and Harry's message if he was not good?
Dumbledore was not around. If asked later all he had to say was that he didnt understand what Harry was trying to say; afterall he is not supposed to knwo that Sirus' is called Padfoot.
Now lets say he let the order know out of fear of what Dumbledor would think why didnt he let Voldmeort know at the same time?
He could have told Voldemort that the order was on their way and Voldemort would have sent more death eaters to batlle the order.
But Snape didnt do that. He just let the order know so that they could go and help Harry and prevent Voldemort from getting the prophecy..
That proves that Snape truly is on the good side..
I'm almost positive Snape did know the name Padfoot. In Snape's Worst Memory the Marauder's clearly don't keep their nicknames secret so Snape most likely would have heard it around, and if Snape had ever viewed his own memory he most definitely would have heard it.
If Snape is evil, I think he had little choice but to alert the Order. Several people heard Harry's 'message' and I believe he could have easily connected "Padfoot" and "the place where it's hidden"--he might have delayed but I doubt he could have ignored the message without a backlash.
But then again, if Tom had gotten Harry at that point Voldemort might have won that night and he'd be a spy no longer--but I don't know if he'd risk that chance.

I do agree that, if he's evil, it's odd that he didn't alert the DE's to bring reinforcements--but it's also odd that he didn't know about this planned attack to begin with. But it is difficult to work out the details, who knows perhaps Snape had to floo to Grimmauld place to get the message across and then couldn't get away from there to send a further message. We just don't know enough about what Snape did/didn't do to say IMO.

Quoting (not totally right wording) Bellatrix, OoTP:

"You can't just say an unforgivable curse. You have to WANT to see them in pain."

Snape is evil, and that is that.

Quoting (not totally right wording) Bellatrix, OoTP:

"You can't just say an unforgivable curse. You have to WANT to see them in pain."

Snape is evil, and that is that.

Quite correct CDM.. but when exactly have we seen Snape using an unforgivable curse..
And forgive me if I'm wrong but.. he kills Dumbledore.. yes.. But I don't quite remember him saying the Avada Kedavra.. Besides he did mean to kill Dumbledore and we like to think that it was pre-arranged..
However wouldn't Harry use an unforgivable curse on lets say Voldmeort?
He would mean it, with so many years of hatred egging him on and the curse would work..
So what connection does using an unforgivable curse have to do with Snape being good or evil?

But I don't quite remember him saying the Avada Kedavra..
Yes, he says it. And it works. :sad:

So what connection does using an unforgivable curse have to do with Snape being good or evil?Well, IMO the mere fact that he used an unforgivable curse rules out that he is a good person. He is and will always be Dumbledores murderer. It is of course possible that it was prearranged or somehow part of a 'good' plan, nonetheless Snape himself had enough hatred and killing instinct in him to make a successfull AK.
That's basically what I mean, Snape is not a good person, but it's possible that he is on the good side, for whatever reasons.

Kala Way
Yes I suppose we could assume that Snape did know Pdfoot was Sirius because they marauders didn't keep it an extremely safe guarded seceret.. But if Snape was trully evil he would let the DE know about the order and would have ensured that back up was sent to help the death eaters fight the order.
The very fact that he didnt do this proves that he is good.
Snape didnt have to go to GP to tell the Order about Harry. Rowling has stated that the order uses patronuses to pass on messages. Even if he did go there he would have been left quite alone after a while. Everyone left GP to help Harry. Snape could have easily acted then. Kreatcher's prsence would not have been a problem. Kreatcher has long since proven to us that his loyaltied do not lie with Sirius.

Hi mystic22! Here you go:

Snape raised his wand and pointed it directly at Dumbledore.
"Avada Kedavra!"
A jet of green light shot from the end of Snape's wand and hit Dumbledore squarely in the chest.


Of course, there is an instance of Harry using the Crucio, and a couple more of his trying to use them again. I don't think this makes Harry evil, because I understand why he used them. Since we do not know why Snape did, I don't think his use of an Unforgivable is conclusive.

Right he did use Avada Kedavra.. Forgive me.. But even then..

Well, IMO the mere fact that he used an unforgivable curse rules out that he is a good person. He is and will always be Dumbledores murderer. It is of course possible that it was prearranged or somehow part of a 'good' plan, nonetheless Snape himself had enough hatred and killing instinct in him to make a successfull AK.
That's basically what I mean, Snape is not a good person, but it's possible that he is on the good side, for whatever reasons.


Harry will Kill Voldmeort and many Death Eaters by the end of his quest. Will that make him an evil person? He has enough hatred in him to kill Belatrix, Voldmeort and in his present state of mind Snape. That would not make him an evil person. He will do it to avenge hundred of innocent live and end the evil named Voldemort. Harry forced Dumbledor to drink the potion that weakened him so much that it left the greatest wizard in the world defenceless. That does not make Harry an evil person. He was bound by his word.
Sape to probably was bound by his word
Killing somone to achieve an end of greater good would not necesarrily be evil.

Didn't Dumbledore kill Grindlewald.. Did that make him evil..??

Oh, I definitely think that Snape is a good person. Casting an Avada does not make a person evil. Then we can probably forget Harry killing Voldemort in DH as that would make him evil as well. Snape may have cast the curse that killed Dumbledore but what's to say that he would have most likely died before the night was out [I]because of the potion Harry fed him[I]. That does not make Harry a killer and if he ends up killing Voldemort, that would also not make him a killer. Snape has to play a part that is not well mannered, kind or good hearted , but I think his priorities are right on the spot. He of all people has the toughest part to play as he is constantly tested on both sides and arouses the suspision of the members of the Light and the Dark.

Harry will Kill Voldmeort and many Death Eaters by the end of his quest. Will that make him an evil person? He has enough hatred in him to kill Belatrix, Voldmeort and in his present state of mind Snape. That would not make him an evil person. He will do it to avenge hundred of innocent live and end the evil named Voldemort. Harry forced Dumbledor to drink the potion that weakened him so much that it left the greatest wizard in the world defenceless. That does not make Harry an evil person. He was bound by his word.
Sape to probably was bound by his word
Killing somone to achieve an end of greater good would not necesarrily be evil.

Didn't Dumbledore kill Grindlewald.. Did that make him evil..??
Well, for that I have my personal theory. :) I don't think that Harry will ever use an unforgivable curse (with success), and he will defeat Voldemort with something else. Also about Grindelwald, the wizarding card says that Dumbledore is famous for defeating Grindelwald, not for killing him. My guess is that he did, but not with an unforgivable.

Anyway my point was that I totally understand that one has to kill for a greater good (in the books I mean), after all it's what Harry has to do, but the unforgivable curses imply a certain unforgivable attitude behind it: cruelty for crucius, killer instinct for AK, domination for imperious. Snape was able to do it, same as Bellatrix, Voldemort and other DE probably. His reasons might be good (or not) but he has the necessary 'evil' state of mind to perform an unforgivable.

Kala Way
Yes I suppose we could assume that Snape did know Pdfoot was Sirius because they marauders didn't keep it an extremely safe guarded seceret.. But if Snape was trully evil he would let the DE know about the order and would have ensured that back up was sent to help the death eaters fight the order.
The very fact that he didnt do this proves that he is good.
Snape didnt have to go to GP to tell the Order about Harry. Rowling has stated that the order uses patronuses to pass on messages. Even if he did go there he would have been left quite alone after a while. Everyone left GP to help Harry. Snape could have easily acted then. Kreatcher's prsence would not have been a problem. Kreatcher has long since proven to us that his loyaltied do not lie with Sirius.
I don't know that it proves that he is good, but it's definitely another vote in his favor (I was just playing devil's advocate :evil:).
As for the communication, I assumed that the patronus communication was only when such a thing could be visible--like when Tonks sends a message from the school gate to the castle. I doubt such communication could work between Hogwarts and London. I'm sure they have other forms of communication other than floo and owls, my point was simply that we don't know enough to be absolutely sure (as, I'm sure, was the nefarious plot of our favorite author :)).

Well, for that I have my personal theory. :) Anyway my point was that I totally understand that one has to kill for a greater good (in the books I mean), after all it's what Harry has to do, but the unforgivable curses imply a certain unforgivable attitude behind it: cruelty for crucius, killer instinct for AK, domination for imperious. Snape was able to do it, same as Bellatrix, Voldemort and other DE probably. His reasons might be good (or not) but he has the necessary 'evil' state of mind to perform an unforgivable.
I agree with you about the Unforgiveables. Imposter Moody teaches the classs about unforgiveables and makes it clear that they are called unforgiveables for a reason. Dumbledore could have died in a variety of ways, but he was killed by the Avada Kedrava, an unforgiveable curse. That seems to suggest that it was a "bad thing" to do and that the person doing it, Snape in this case, will be punished for what he did. I don't think that it is possible to justify killing an unarmed man under any circumstances. And I don't think it is possible to justify killing a sick person. And I don't think it is possible to justify killing someone just because that person asks you to kill them (which I don't think Dumbledore did). All these things are very touchy moral issues. People have gone to prison for killing sick people, people who ask them to kill them. It would be very hard to justify Snape's actions, especially when he had taken an Unbreakable Vow.

staniw has made some really good points and I do agree about the moral aspect. Up until the end of HBP, when we reach the Astronomy tower, Snape could have gone both ways - good side/bad side -, but the moment he killed Dumbledore the verdict seemed spoken. Snape voicing the Avada Kedavra and pointing his wand at Dumbledore is pretty obvious.

I see it from a narrative point of view when I ask myself, would JKR reveal the truth about Snape´s allegiance in the penultimate book already? And there are still these many ambiguities in a lot of his actions in the whole series. Why has he not killed Harry already? Why hasn´t he left Hogwarts and taken Harry with him to LV anytime after GoF? Why has he alerted the Order in OotP? What is the iron-clad reason Dumbledore trusted him so completely? Why has he been given and accepted the cursed post of DADA teacher exactly at that point in time? What exactly had he been arguing over with Dumbledore? ...... All of that, and a few more things I´ve forgotten at the moment, just make me wonder what JKR still has up on her sleeve for Snape.


That's basically what I mean, Snape is not a good person, but it's possible that he is on the good side, for whatever reasons.Yeah, exactly that´s how I see it. :agree: I think it is possible that Snape - against all odds - is still somehow on the good side.

Of course, there is an instance of Harry using the Crucio, and a couple more of his trying to use them again. I don't think this makes Harry evil, because I understand why he used them. Since we do not know why Snape did, I don't think his use of an Unforgivable is conclusive.
There is one huge difference, though. Harry thought he was angry enough to use an Unforgivable, and tried twice, but he couldn't muster enough hatred and sadism to succeed (at least the first time - the second time is uncertain). Snape's Avada Kedavra went like clockwork - he clearly knew what he was doing! So I don't think we can use Harry's unsuccessful attempts at Unforgivables to illustrate anything. I'm aware that Aurors were authorised to do Unforgivables in the line of duty, though.

Imposter Moody teaches the classs about unforgiveables and makes it clear that they are called unforgiveables for a reason. Dumbledore could have died in a variety of ways, but he was killed by the Avada Kedrava, an unforgiveable curse. That seems to suggest that it was a "bad thing" to do and that the person doing it, Snape in this case, will be punished for what he did. I don't think that it is possible to justify killing an unarmed man under any circumstances. .

I agree completely. They're unforgivable. The main "good" characters expressed dissaproval over the aurors using the unforgivables, and being able to kill instead of capture. Dumbledore would never condone the use of them.

While J.K.Rowling was being interviewed about Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, a reporter said "Snape seems to have a sort of redeptive qualty about him, doesn't he?". J.K. Rowling later said that she was astonished at this question. Aside from being a major plot hint, what does this mean for the current perception of Snape?
for stimulative rhetoric: you have all heard the glass being half empty or half full adage; is evil the absence of good, or is good the absence of evil? Or are they different things entirely? And what does the answer say about Snape?

There is one huge difference, though. Harry thought he was angry enough to use an Unforgivable, and tried twice, but he couldn't muster enough hatred and sadism to succeed (at least the first time - the second time is uncertain). Snape's Avada Kedavra went like clockwork - he clearly knew what he was doing! So I don't think we can use Harry's unsuccessful attempts at Unforgivables to illustrate anything. I'm aware that Aurors were authorised to do Unforgivables in the line of duty, though.

Harry's first attempt, which you are dismissing, was enough to cause its victim (Bella) to scream, and be thrown to the ground. Snape's first attempt is not at this point known by us to be any more successful. However, since its victim (Dumbledore) was thrown off a very high tower, regardless of the success level of Snape's spell, the victim is dead.

Er, I think this topic is covered in Snape the Hero which is in Legillemency Studies

first attempt is not at this point known by us to be any more successful. However, since its victim (Dumbledore) was thrown off a very high tower, regardless of the success level of Snape's spell, the victim is dead.

how is it unsuccessful? Dumbledore died, which was the intent. completely successful.

****
:grumble:

Bella screamed. That sounds successful to me, just short lived. (A Killing Curse only needs to be successful for an instant, after all - a difference between it and the other two Unforgivables).

The argument being made by staniw and guad is that there is something intrinsically more evil about the Avada Kedavra, as compared to any other manner of killing. Personally, I disagree, I think Snape would be no more or less cuplable if he had killed Dumbledore with a Muggle revolver or by pushing him off the Tower instead of killing him instantly with a Killing Curse. And I think that the scene was set up in a way which at least suggests that Snape's motives were not simple murder or self-preservation. That's what matters to me in judging his action - why he did it, something we do not know.

However, I am pointing out that, by their standards, we can't know that Snape actually does have the evil 'killer instinct', or whatever you want to call it, needed to kill someone with a Killing Curse. Because we can't be sure that Dumbledore died instantly, and for their argument, this matters. Pushing him off the Tower, recall, is supposed to be different.

Harry's first attempt, which you are dismissing, was enough to cause its victim (Bella) to scream, and be thrown to the ground. Snape's first attempt is not at this point known by us to be any more successful. However, since its victim (Dumbledore) was thrown off a very high tower, regardless of the success level of Snape's spell, the victim is dead.
Lets look at the books.
"I thought you were here to avenge my dear cousin
...
Aaaaaah ... did you love him, little baby Potter?"

Hatred rose in Harry such as he had never known before; he flung himself our from behind the fountain and bellowed, "Crucio!"

Bellatrix screamed: the spell had knocked her off her feet, but she did not writhe and shriek with pain as Neville had - she was already back on her feet, breathless, no longer laughing.

...
"Never used an Unforgivable Curse before, have you, boy?" she yelled. she had abandoned her baby voice now. "You need to mean them, Potter! You need to really want to cause pain - to enjoy it - righteous anger won't hurt me for long - I'll show you how it is done, shall I?"


Snape raised his wand and pointed it directly at Dumbledore.
"Avada Kedavra!"
A jet of green light shot from the end of Snape's wand and hit Dumbledore squarely in the chest. Harry's scream of horror never left him; silent and unmoving, he was forced to watch as Dumbledore was blasted into the air: for a split second he seemed to hang suspended beneath the shining skull, and then he fell slowly backwards, like a great rag doll, over the battlements and out of sight.

Dumbledore falling "like a rag doll" certainly seems to imply that it was Snape's Avada Kedavra which killed him, not hitting the ground.

The argument being made by staniw and guad is that there is something intrinsically more evil about the Avada Kedavra, as compared to any other manner of killing. Personally, I disagree, I think Snape would be no more or less cuplable if he had killed Dumbledore with a Muggle revolver or by pushing him off the Tower instead of killing him instantly with a Killing Curse. And I think that the scene was set up in a way which at least suggests that Snape's motives were not simple murder or self-preservation. That's what matters to me in judging his action - why he did it, something we do not know.
I agree with that. Killing is killing, no matter how you do it. The only difference here would be the difference between deliberate killing (murder) and accidental killing, by neglect or stupidity, or killing in the line of duty (manslaughter). The point that you have to be capable of genuine hatred in order to use an Unforgivable remains - anyone can pull a trigger, but it requires real hatred to cast an AK. However, we already know Snape is capable of hatred, and it doesn't prove he's not good!

Harry's first attempt, which you are dismissing, was enough to cause its victim (Bella) to scream, and be thrown to the ground. Snape's first attempt is not at this point known by us to be any more successful.


However, since its victim (Dumbledore) was thrown off a very high tower, regardless of the success level of Snape's spell, the victim is dead.

What you are also ignoring about Harry's first attempt was that it was the Cruciatus curse, not the Avada Kedavra
While they are both Unforgivable, they do not work in the same way, it would then be safe to assume that a failed version of the spell would react in different ways, the failed Avada Kedavra might simply do nothing at all (not enough evil intent) or it may backfire and kill the caster, who knows?

What you are also ignoring about Harry's first attempt was that it was the Cruciatus curse, not the Avada Kedavra
While they are both Unforgivable, they do not work in the same way, it would then be safe to assume that a failed version of the spell would react in different ways, the failed Avada Kedavra might simply do nothing at all (not enough evil intent) or it may backfire and kill the caster, who knows?
good point. we have no reason to beleive that a weak AK merely causes pain or immobilization but not death. Unlike Cruiciatus, where the resulting pain has varying levels or severity, death does not come in varying levels. While cruciatus and AK are both unforgivables, we dont know that they are similar in their mechanics. They are classified similarly because of the similarly bad nature of their results, not because they are alike in the way they work.

If someone, namely snape, causes someone to die with intent to kill them, and the true hatred needed to do so, its pretty bad. Like any spell, AK needs desire to work. If one attempts a basic expelliarmus with no desire to disarm their opponent, it probably wouldn't work. AK is the same way. With muggle weapons, it's difficult emotionally to pull the trigger unless you want to cause injury. But as long as the trigger is pulled, the emotion behind it matters not. AK is different.

anyways, there is a point to this. death by muggle weapons is not nesscessarily equal to death by AK, in terms of intent. a weak AK would not nesscessarily have sent dumbledore out of the tower.

Hey, where did you hear this from JKR? I'd love to read it, as I'm an avid Snape-is-Good-ist.

Here is what Imposter Moody says about the AK curse: GoF, pg 217, US ed

"Avada Kedavra's a curse that needs a powerful bit of magic behind it - you could all get your wands out now and point them at me and say the words, and I doubt I would get so much as a nosebleed."

snip

"Now . . . those three curses - Avada Kedavra, Imperious and Cruciatus - are known as the Unforgiveable Curses. The use of any one of them on a fellow human being is enough to earn a life sentence in Azkaban." So, this indicates that an AK curse that does not have enough power behind it would still have some effect.

Yes, Near, where did you hear this. I'd also like to read it as I'm also in the "Snape is Good" camp.

AHHH. ME too! DIATTSSISE got me sold.
but I like the good/evil thing, mind if I quote that in my signature.

I dont think it belongs in the snape is good thread. it might belong in divination studies, as in "can snape be redeemed?" I am in the "snape is kind of bad now, but not all bad, and will be redeemed" camp, which doesn't really exsist, but this supports my theories.

I presume the OP means this interview (http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/1999/1099-connectiontransc2.htm#p13):


Lydon: Er - one of our connec- ... one of our internet correspondents wondered if Snape is going to fall in love?

JKR: Yeah? Who on earth would want Snape in love with them, that is a very horrible idea. Erm ...

Lydon: But you'd get an important kind of redemptive pattern to Snape

JKR: It is, isn't it ... I got ... There's so much I wish I could say to you, and I can't because it'd ruin ... I promise you ... whoever asked that question, can I just say to you that I'm - I'm slightly stunned that you've said that - erm - and you'll find out why I'm so stunned if you read book 7. And that's all I'm going to say.

Lydon: Mmmm - this is - this is encouraging. (1:17)

Oh! Wow, yeah, I already saw this, I guess my wording just got mixed up ^^
But until now I always thought that it meant Snape would fall in love, I didn't notice the redeeming part....

This is just a theroy i had of why snape might be good. what if snape really was on DD's side alalong,and told DD about the unbreakablebond, and if we know anything about DD it's that he values others lifes over his. So maybe he told snape to complete the vow, and in HBP when he said "serverus" in a pleading way maybe he was pleading snape to kill him.

Just a thought

I dunno, Zg, the original post said JKR was being interviewed about DH. :huh:

BTW, that quote seems (to me) to indicate that JKR is shocked by the first question. However, redemptive pattern, definitely. We even hear from Dumbledore about Snape's guilt over the Potter's deaths, which led to his changing sides. Redemptive pattern, indeed.

The argument being made by staniw and guad is that there is something intrinsically more evil about the Avada Kedavra, as compared to any other manner of killing.
Actually I didn't mean to say that the killing by AK is more evil than with an axe but I meant that the capacity of casting an AK requires a certain state of mind. It's not an unforgivable curse for nothing.
The point that you have to be capable of genuine hatred in order to use an Unforgivable remains - anyone can pull a trigger, but it requires real hatred to cast an AK. However, we already know Snape is capable of hatred, and it doesn't prove he's not good! That's what I meant :)

My point is actually that the concept of Snape good or not is very confusing. Snape is NOT good. He is not a nice person. He is a deeply horrible person (JKR). He has done many nasty things allthrough the serie.
Nontheless I think that it's possible that he is on Dumbledores side. I personally don't like to define Snape as good, because IMO we have never seen him as a good guy. Lily was good. Neville is good. Dumbledore is good. Hagrid is good. Molly is good. Harry is good. Lupin is good. These characters are what I call good.

I prefer to say that the possibility of him being on Dumbledores side exists. Not even on the side of the order, but on Dumbledores side. All we have seen through the serie connects him to Dumbledore as a person: Dumbledore speaks for him in the Wizegamot, Dumbledore is the only one who really trusts him, etc. So if I trust Dumbledore I must trust Snape. That doesn't make him a fluffy bunny. :lol:

i took one of the stickers from the bookstore that sed "trust snape" cuz i beleive the theory that he will save harry due to love for lily that is the coolest plotline i think

ignisia--in "The Seer Observed" in HBP Dumbledore says he thinks it was guilt over how Voldemort interpreted the Prophecy (to target the Potters) that led to Snape rejoining the good side, not their deaths. This change had to happen before they were killed because in "The Pensieve" in GoF we hear Dumbledore say that Snape "turned spy at great personal risk" while Voldemort was still powerful, which has to be pre-Godric's Hollow. Harry says Dumbledore said it was the Potters' deaths that turned Snape--which is strange, since Harry was the one who heard that Pensieve bit I just quoted.

Oops, I do know that. I guess I've gotten Harry Filtered one too many times. ^^;

ignisia--in "The Seer Observed" in HBP Dumbledore says he thinks it was guilt over how Voldemort interpreted the Prophecy (to target the Potters) that led to Snape rejoining the good side, not their deaths. This change had to happen before they were killed because in "The Pensieve" in GoF we hear Dumbledore say that Snape "turned spy at great personal risk" while Voldemort was still powerful, which has to be pre-Godric's Hollow. Harry says Dumbledore said it was the Potters' deaths that turned Snape--which is strange, since Harry was the one who heard that Pensieve bit I just quoted.


This could be another case of the Harry filter. He just doesn’t want to believe that DD had any reasons to believe the teacher he hates so much. He’d hated Snape ever since their first Potion lesson, even before he[Harry] learned anything about Snape’s background, and something like that doesn’t just change in a teenager. They are too damn stubborn.. :grumble:

Yep, JKR made it pretty plain that Harry was thinking irrationally in regards to Snape during the Hospital Wing scene:

"So when he arrived at the fight, he joined in on the Death Eaters' side?" asked Harry, who wanted every detail of Snape's duplicity and infamy, feverishly collecting more reasons to hate him, to swear vengeance.

It's actually interesting that he does this. Isn't the death of Dumbledore enough? Perhaps even Harry has a little inkling deep down that things are not as they seem, so he wants to bury that inkling, since it's easier to hate.

Merging that into the topic, I think that it will take a lot for Snape to be redeemed in Harry's eyes, if this is the case. Harry seems to be digging himself into a "thinking trap", as our school counselor would call it.

Actually I didn't mean to say that the killing by AK is more evil than with an axe but I meant that the capacity of casting an AK requires a certain state of mind. It's not an unforgivable curse for nothing.
My objection to this idea remains. It takes something to swing an axe at a fellow human being as well. To me its Unforgivableness lies int he fact that the only purpose for the spell is to kill someone, not that you have to be a 'bad' person to be able to use it.

My point is actually that the concept of Snape good or not is very confusing. Snape is NOT good. He is not a nice person. He is a deeply horrible person (JKR). He has done many nasty things allthrough the serie.
I agree that the idea that Snape is a good person is confusing, and really ought to be considered separately from the question of which side he is on. (Hence, two Triumvirate threads for people who can agree he is on the 'good side'...;) )

I prefer to say that the possibility of him being on Dumbledore's side exists. Not even on the side of the order, but on Dumbledores side. All we have seen through the serie connects him to Dumbledore as a person: Dumbledore speaks for him in the Wizegamot, Dumbledore is the only one who really trusts him, etc. So if I trust Dumbledore I must trust Snape.

I would not limit it to Dumbledore. He would seem to be, in his own unique way, on Harry's side too. A lot of the things he has done which lead me to conclude that he is on the 'good side' involve trying to look after Harry: the broom unhexing in PS/SS, the attempted rescue of Harry and Co. from Sirius and Lupin in PoA, telling the Order about Harry's vision and later disappearance in OotP, and his actions in "The Flight of the Prince". In PoA he was acting despite Dumbledore's repeated insistence that Lupin was trustworthy, and in "The Flight of the Prince" Dumbledore was already dead.

That doesn't make him a fluffy bunny. :lol:

This is another distinction about Snape that I find creates a lot of confusion. I believe he is good person in the meaningful sense that he has chosen the right side in the war, because it is the right side. He has personal issues which cause him to act in ways that don't always work out for the best (if he could just get along with Harry, life would be sooo much easier...) but in this he is no different from Lupin, who could probably have prevented the PoA fiasco by telling Dumbledore everything he knew about Sirius and Peter at the start of that school year. (Actually, ditto Sirius, who could have Owled his sad story to Dumbledore instead of going it alone. He's not on your list, but I would consider Sirius good as well).

What Lupin is, that Snape isn't, is nice.

Snape raised his wand and pointed it directly at Dumbledore.
"Avada Kedavra!"
A jet of green light shot from the end of Snape's wand and hit Dumbledore squarely in the chest. Harry's scream of horror never left him; silent and unmoving, he was forced to watch as Dumbledore was blasted into the air: for a split second he seemed to hang suspended beneath the shining skull, and then he fell slowly backwards, like a great rag doll, over the battlements and out of sight.

Dumbledore falling "like a rag doll" certainly seems to imply that it was Snape's Avada Kedavra which killed him, not hitting the ground.


Falling "like a rag doll" could mean that Dumbledore was only knocked out. If Dumbledore was dead at the top of the tower his heart would have stopped beating before he hit the ground and no blood would have been circulating. He should not have had blood at the cornor of his mouth. A small cut at that point he hit the ground should not have bled.

Falling "like a rag doll" could mean that Dumbledore was only knocked out. If Dumbledore was dead at the top of the tower his heart would have stopped beating before he hit the ground and no blood would have been circulating. He should not have had blood at the cornor of his mouth. A small cut at that point he hit the ground should not have bled. On that same note, if Dumbledore was just knocked out then a fall of that distance should have created much more blood than a trickle at the corner of his mouth.

Ok... here's a theory that I thought of when I was watching an episode of the 4400 this week... the episode that I was watching was called Reborn, and at first I thought it was going to be about a character being physically reborn, but in the end it was about a character on the road to redemption, sound familiar ;)...

Once I realized that... I started thinking... I've been wondering for awhile about how Dumbledore got a Phoenix as a Patronus, and now thanks to that episode, I've come up with a good theory... maybe Snape told something to Dumbledore that shocked him so emotionally (remember what Lupin told Harry - that people's Patronuses can change due to emotional shock ;) - not exact wording), that his Patronus changed to that of a Phoenix. It's not only a symbol of physical rebirth, but also of spiritual rebirth, i.e.: redemption as well.

On that same note, if Dumbledore was just knocked out then a fall of that distance should have created much more blood than a trickle at the corner of his mouth.

Bear in mind that wizards, especially powerful ones, do not injure as humans do. Remember that Neville simply bounced when dropped from an upper-story window, that's how he found out for sure that he was a wizard. Also, speaking of Neville, when fell off his broomstick from a height in PS/SS, he only broke his wrist. Same throughout the stories, notice how getting hit with a solid-iron bludger does not kill a wizard; no one at Hogwarts ever died playing Quidditch, which is pretty impressive the more you know about that game.

I don't think we can deduce the manner of Dumbledore's death from the trickle of blood. Unless we learn differently in Deathly Hallows, Snape killed Dumbledore with the AK.

So here's a question: I believe that Dumbledore considered finding and destroying Voldemort's Horcuxes the most important thing to be done, and was planning on helping Harry find and destroy the rest of them so that Harry could eventually defeat Voldemort.

But then Snape taking the Unbreakable Vow complicated things. If Snape is really good and Dumbledore had planned for Snape to kill him, since he needed Snape to be alive to do something for the Order, what would that something be exactly? It will be more difficult for Harry to find and destroy the Horcruxes, now that Dumbledore is dead. What task does Snape need to fulfill which is so important that Dumbledore had to sacrifice himself and abandon his search for the Horcruxes, leaving it to Harry?

Yep, JKR made it pretty plain that Harry was thinking irrationally in regards to Snape during the Hospital Wing scene:



It's actually interesting that he does this. Isn't the death of Dumbledore enough? Perhaps even Harry has a little inkling deep down that things are not as they seem, so he wants to bury that inkling, since it's easier to hate.

Merging that into the topic, I think that it will take a lot for Snape to be redeemed in Harry's eyes, if this is the case. Harry seems to be digging himself into a "thinking trap", as our school counselor would call it.

Yep, I agree :agree:. It seems as if Harry is doing the same kind of thing that Snape did with both Sirius and James, only not to such a big degree though.

It will be very interesting to see how Snape will try and redeem himself in book 7...

Dumbledore falling "like a rag doll" certainly seems to imply that it was Snape's Avada Kedavra which killed him, not hitting the ground.

.

no, even if there was not enough damage to kill him, the AK could still have knocked him out so he would fall like a rag doll.


many people have been saying that the loyal snape in spinner's end had to take the unbreakable vow to appear loyal to LV. I disagree. Snape could easily have averted the situation by telling narcissa that draco had to carry through with the task that the dark lord had given him, that they shouldn't go behind LV's back, or even that he didn't know what the task was. Snape is a smart guy, he could have thought of all of that. snape wasn't really under pressure to make the unbreakable vow.

Maybe Snape's killing Dumbledore wasn't initially part of Dumbledore's plan. Maybe it only became part of the plan when Bellatrix and Narcissa came in, forcing Snape to make the Unbreakable Vow, which changed everything. See, Dumbledore had to make a choice here. Should he order Snape to break the Vow, and try to escape from Malfoy and the Death Eaters, which would certainly mean Snape's death? Or should he give up his own life, so Snape wouldn't have to break the Vow, but he himself wouldn't surive?

I don't think Dumbledore expected anything like an unbreakable vow, nor did Snape. Bellatrix and Narcissa took him by surprise, and Snape had no choice but to make the Vow. I imagine he immediately contacted Dumbledore after this happened, and then Dumbledore made his decision: Snape will live, I will die.

Now we know Snape to be a very powerful wizard. Probably the most skilled Death Eater Voldemort has, or at least thinks he has. If Snape is able to convince Voldemort of his loyalty to him, then who knows what kind of information he could retrieve from him. Maybe even hints to the whereabouts of the remaining horcruxes. And if that's not the case, Snape could at least sabotage Voldemorts plans.

Dumbledore knew this, and he decided that Snapes part in the final battle would be more important than his own. For whereas Dumbledore could only lead the Order of the Phoenix, and join them in battle, Snape could attack Voldemort and his army from the inside. And when Snape would finally turn out good, he would still be a very powerful wizard, and could replace Dumbledore, up to a certain level.

many people have been saying that the loyal snape in spinner's end had to take the unbreakable vow to appear loyal to LV. I disagree. Snape could easily have averted the situation by telling narcissa that draco had to carry through with the task that the dark lord had given him, that they shouldn't go behind LV's back, or even that he didn't know what the task was. Snape is a smart guy, he could have thought of all of that. snape wasn't really under pressure to make the unbreakable vow.
You are right - Snape could have echoed Bellatrix and told Narcissa to get over it. He could have said that Draco got himself into this and he can get himself out. He could have played it safe and not helped anyone but himself, and thrown the entire Malfoy family under a speeding train.

He could have left Narcissa with no one in the world to help her. He could have proven to us all that he was the biggest, baddest Death Eater in all the books - impervious to someone pleading for her son's life, just as Lily pleaded for Harry's life. That would have proven his true character, which would just be one step below Voldemort.

But he didn't do any of those things. :)

Snape helped Narcissa and Draco, in spite of Bellatrix and her suspicians. And that is the echo of Dumbledore on the Tower, offering to help Draco and hide his mother. Snape is acting in the way that Dumbledore would have wanted him to act - by showing mercy.

The Unbreakable Vow is by definition a self-less act, because if you break your word, you die. It can't be seen as just an act of selfishness to save Snape's own skin or prove something.

It proves something - that Snape has a heart.

Maybe Snape's killing Dumbledore wasn't initially part of Dumbledore's plan. Maybe it only became part of the plan when Bellatrix and Narcissa came in, forcing Snape to make the Unbreakable Vow, which changed everything. See, Dumbledore had to make a choice here. Should he order Snape to break the Vow, and try to escape from Malfoy and the Death Eaters, which would certainly mean Snape's death? Or should he give up his own life, so Snape wouldn't have to break the Vow, but he himself wouldn't surive?

I don't think Dumbledore expected anything like an unbreakable vow, nor did Snape. Bellatrix and Narcissa took him by surprise, and Snape had no choice but to make the Vow. I imagine he immediately contacted Dumbledore after this happened, and then Dumbledore made his decision: Snape will live, I will die.

Now we know Snape to be a very powerful wizard. Probably the most skilled Death Eater Voldemort has, or at least thinks he has. If Snape is able to convince Voldemort of his loyalty to him, then who knows what kind of information he could retrieve from him. Maybe even hints to the whereabouts of the remaining horcruxes. And if that's not the case, Snape could at least sabotage Voldemorts plans.

Dumbledore knew this, and he decided that Snapes part in the final battle would be more important than his own. For whereas Dumbledore could only lead the Order of the Phoenix, and join them in battle, Snape could attack Voldemort and his army from the inside. And when Snape would finally turn out good, he would still be a very powerful wizard, and could replace Dumbledore, up to a certain level.

I agree :agree:, it will be interesting to see whether or not this will happen. Personally, I hope that it does... Voldemort wouldn't know what was comin'...

You are right - Snape could have echoed Bellatrix and told Narcissa to get over it. He could have said that Draco got himself into this and he can get himself out. He could have played it safe and not helped anyone but himself, and thrown the entire Malfoy family under a speeding train.

He could have left Narcissa with no one in the world to help her. He could have proven to us all that he was the biggest, baddest Death Eater in all the books - impervious to someone pleading for her son's life, just as Lily pleaded for Harry's life. That would have proven his true character, which would just be one step below Voldemort.

But he didn't do any of those things. :)

Snape helped Narcissa and Draco, in spite of Bellatrix and her suspicians. And that is the echo of Dumbledore on the Tower, offering to help Draco and hide his mother. Snape is acting in the way that Dumbledore would have wanted him to act - by showing mercy.

The Unbreakable Vow is by definition a self-less act, because if you break your word, you die. It can't be seen as just an act of selfishness to save Snape's own skin or prove something.

It proves something - that Snape has a heart.

Good points, silver!! Yes it does show that he has one and that he's willing to do something to help out a friend whose son is in danger.

I don't think Dumbledore expected anything like an unbreakable vow, nor did Snape. Bellatrix and Narcissa took him by surprise, and Snape had no choice but to make the Vow. I imagine he immediately contacted Dumbledore after this happened, and then Dumbledore made his decision: Snape will live, I will die.Well, that seems to be the big question of today. Could Snape have avoided to make the UV whilst maintaining his cover as a loyal DE?

Theoretically possible. But, I always felt he kind of got tricked into it. And, no, that does not mean Snape is stupid. But he is a human being (though fictional of course) after all. We can assume there might have been sympathy for Narcissa, maybe he really wanted to help and thought, vowing to have a watch over Draco couldn´t hurt. I still think he got surprised by the third condition. If he had known what this third condition was, he might have tried to avoid making the vow.
We must not forget as well, that Bellatrix was very suspicious about his loyalty. While I do think that Snape owes explanations only to his master, and this master was probably not very much in favour of Bellatrix anyway after the desaster at the MoM, Snape has to work with other DEs to a certain extent as well. Maybe exchanging information and things like that. Bellatrix could have influenced at least some of the other DEs against Snape when he had refused to take the vow, and that would have made his life much harder.

Snape helped Narcissa and Draco, in spite of Bellatrix and her suspicians. And that is the echo of Dumbledore on the Tower, offering to help Draco and hide his mother. Snape is acting in the way that Dumbledore would have wanted him to act - by showing mercy.

The Unbreakable Vow is by definition a self-less act, because if you break your word, you die. It can't be seen as just an act of selfishness to save Snape's own skin or prove something.

It proves something - that Snape has a heart.

I disagree. Snape could have kept his cover, and his heart, without the UV. He could refuse Narcissa because he didn't want to kill dumbledore, and meanwhile tell dumbledore of what had happened and, before Draco got his plan underway, somehow stopped him. Snape could have temporarily refused to help Draco, but I'm sure he and Dumbledore could have come up with a plan to either make Dumbledore appear as if dead or to make Draco appear dead. LV must have a lot of trust in snape, as he trusts him despite his seeming loyalties to DD, maybe Snape could influence LV not to give Draco the mission. Either way, Snape did not have to make the vow. He knew he'd have to kill dumbledore. At the very least, he could have conferenced with DD about it first and called Narcissa back if he had changed his mind.

If Snape is really good and Dumbledore had planned for Snape to kill him, since he needed Snape to be alive to do something for the Order, what would that something be exactly? It will be more difficult for Harry to find and destroy the Horcruxes, now that Dumbledore is dead. What task does Snape need to fulfill which is so important that Dumbledore had to sacrifice himself and abandon his search for the Horcruxes, leaving it to Harry?

Two things come to mind:

First, Horcruxes. The identity of one is not even known (Dumbledore guesses it must be some thing of Ravenclaw's). There are big hints that some Death Eaters know where/what some of these things are (even if they are not aware that the things are Horcruxes). Lucius was entrusted with the Diary Horcrux, and Bella said in Spinner's End that the Dark Lord had entrusted her with his most precious - (what?! I'm betting the locket). One thing that Snape could be doing is learning stuff like this from the inside, something he is uniquely positioned to do. Dumbledore is older and wiser and more knowledgeable, but he lacks Snape's (now fairly ironclad) credentials as a Death Eater.

Second, simply being near Voldemort. At some point, Harry is going to have to get close enough to Voldemort to kill/vanquish him. This is likely to be quite dangerous for Harry - a secret ally, even one he does not recognize, could make all the difference.

Snape is good. I have re-read and re-read again and again oop and hbp to find anything that will help answer the question and something tells me he's good...would it could change soooooooooo esaily

Either way, Snape did not have to make the vow. He knew he'd have to kill dumbledore. At the very least, he could have conferenced with DD about it first and called Narcissa back if he had changed his mind.
I disagree. I think Snape really did not have a choice in the matter if he wanted to continue spying on Voldemort and the DE. Yes, he had a choice and could have said no but that would have sacrificed one of the biggest weapons the order had on Voldemort. If he would have refused to take the UV, then Bellatrix would have had something on him and we know she would have ran right back to Voldemort. Snape would have then been confronted by Voldemort about why he did not take the vow. Now, if Snape really believed that Voldemort intended him to kill Dumbledore in the end anyway, then I do believe Voldemort would start to wonder where Snape's try loyalities lie. In other words, I believe that if Snape would have refused to perform the vow, Snape would not be in a very good position with Voldemort and the DE.

I really do think that Snape and Dumbledore had a little plan. Simple because there is no way a man like Albus Dumbledore would beg for his life.

Anyway, my thoughts on Snape:
This is a character that I can never make my mind up on. One minute I hate him and the next I feel sorry for him and actually like him. I mean looking back through the book he really is horrible to Harry but then there are moments when he truely seems to care for Harry. There are so many instances when Snape could have taken out Harry himself, but yet he doesn't. And in the end of HBP, he has his chance. Harry is alone, hurt and in a very vulnerable position. But instead of just sending the killing curse at Harry, Snape decides to have a little chat.

I am the first to admit that I want Snape to be evil. When I am actually reading the books, I can't stand him and think he is almost as evil as Voldemort. But after I am done reading and have done some reflecting on what I have read, I always come to the same conclusion... Snape is not evil and Dumbledore has been right about him all along.

Two things come to mind:

First, Horcruxes. The identity of one is not even known (Dumbledore guesses it must be some thing of Ravenclaw's). There are big hints that some Death Eaters know where/what some of these things are (even if they are not aware that the things are Horcruxes). Lucius was entrusted with the Diary Horcrux, and Bella said in Spinner's End that the Dark Lord had entrusted her with his most precious - (what?! I'm betting the locket). One thing that Snape could be doing is learning stuff like this from the inside, something he is uniquely positioned to do. Dumbledore is older and wiser and more knowledgeable, but he lacks Snape's (now fairly ironclad) credentials as a Death Eater.

Second, simply being near Voldemort. At some point, Harry is going to have to get close enough to Voldemort to kill/vanquish him. This is likely to be quite dangerous for Harry - a secret ally, even one he does not recognize, could make all the difference.That presupposes Snape knows about the horcruxes, and I personally am still not convinced that is the case. I know, Snape treated Dumbledore´s hand, but Dumbledore was under no obligation to tell Snape how he got injured. And even if he had, the injuries didn´t stem from the horcrux itsself, but from the protection curse around it.

I always understood that no one else other than Dumbledore, Harry, Ron and Hermione (and LV of course) know about the horcruxes and that this is a crucial advantage for Harry. I already said this a few days ago, if we assume Snape is a double agent for Dumbledore, he would not necessarily be let in on everything. The risk that LV could find out somehow would be too big. Especially with the horcruxes. The less people know the better.

I think he's bad remember in HP and the HBP? when he killed Dumbledore there was hatetred( I don't think I spelled that right) and revoltion in his eye and Dumbledore was pleading whith snape ( I REFUSE capitalise his name.) And no I don't think he will go back to good side.

I partly think he is in it for himself and dosn't care what happens. He's in for the power he can gain he is like LV in many ways only not as brave. remember in book one LV says there is no good or evil there is only power. Well this may as well refer to snape.

I also had this thought:
In Ootp He was teaching Harry oclumancy? Well was the pensive his own or did Dumbledore lend snape his? If it was infact Dumbledores, could snape have looked in it for the memory of the prophacy, knowing that Dumbledore saw it.
If this was true would Dumbledore have the sence to have removed the memory ( or can you remove a memory?)

well thats all I have to say on snape...

well actuly... I say that you should trust some of your first impresions and I feel that this is the case.

My point is actually that the concept of Snape good or not is very confusing. Snape is NOT good. He is not a nice person. He is a deeply horrible person (JKR). He has done many nasty things allthrough the serie.
Nontheless I think that it's possible that he is on Dumbledores side. I personally don't like to define Snape as good, because IMO we have never seen him as a good guy. Lily was good. Neville is good. Dumbledore is good. Hagrid is good. Molly is good. Harry is good. Lupin is good. These characters are what I call good.

I prefer to say that the possibility of him being on Dumbledores side exists. Not even on the side of the order, but on Dumbledores side. All we have seen through the serie connects him to Dumbledore as a person: Dumbledore speaks for him in the Wizegamot, Dumbledore is the only one who really trusts him, etc. So if I trust Dumbledore I must trust Snape. That doesn't make him a fluffy bunny.
It all depends on your definition of good. If by good you mean kind, loving, friendly, and the sort of person you'd enjoy going to the pub with, then obviously Snape isn't like that. But those are actually social qualities rather than the definition of goodness itself, IMO. As I see it, if Snape is serving Dumbledore and fighting against Voldemort then he's basically good (although still "deeply horrible"). When Snape saves Harry's life in PS (assuming, of course, that there was no ulterior motive for this) he is showing that he is a good person despite his personality deficiencies. I see personal "goodness" as being measured by actions and a persons overall motivation, rather than by whether they are "nice". To misquote Sirius, the world isn't divided into nice people and death eaters! There are nasty people on the good side too!

Well, I would like to believe that Snape is "good", in a sense. However, just because he is good on the inside doesnt mean he'll choose the right side of the battle. He may feel obligated to join the Dark side because of family ties, his past, he doesnt have the guts to betray his dark buddies, whatever... but whatever is happening he must be feeling some inner turmoil right now.

Kind of like Avatar... Zuko and the Crossroads of Destiny and all that ^_^ hehe if you dont know what Im talking about, look it up :p

That presupposes Snape knows about the horcruxes, and I personally am still not convinced that is the case. I know, Snape treated Dumbledore´s hand, but Dumbledore was under no obligation to tell Snape how he got injured. And even if he had, the injuries didn´t stem from the horcrux itsself, but from the protection curse around it.

I always understood that no one else other than Dumbledore, Harry, Ron and Hermione (and LV of course) know about the horcruxes and that this is a crucial advantage for Harry. I already said this a few days ago, if we assume Snape is a double agent for Dumbledore, he would not necessarily be let in on everything. The risk that LV could find out somehow would be too big. Especially with the horcruxes. The less people know the better.

I agree with that.

Dragontamergirl, we don't need to use spoiler tags for anything in the books at the moment. Personally, I think the hatred on Snape's face when he killed Dumbledore doesn't necessarily indicated that he always hated Dumbledore - just that he hated what Dumbledore was making him do just then (assuming that Dumbledore had told Snape to kill him if it became necessary). But it's all masterfully written to keep us guessing.

It all depends on your definition of good. If by good you mean kind, loving, friendly, and the sort of person you'd enjoy going to the pub with, then obviously Snape isn't like that. But those are actually social qualities rather than the definition of goodness itself, IMO. As I see it, if Snape is serving Dumbledore and fighting against Voldemort then he's basically good (although still "deeply horrible"). When Snape saves Harry's life in PS (assuming, of course, that there was no ulterior motive for this) he is showing that he is a good person despite his personality deficiencies. I see personal "goodness" as being measured by actions and a persons overall motivation, rather than by whether they are "nice". To misquote Sirius, the world isn't divided into nice people and death eaters! There are nasty people on the good side too!

This is an excellent point, and very well put. He's not nice, but if he's willing to risk his life to serve the good side, if he's faithful to Dumbledore to the end, if he's even ready to tear his soul in order to be able to aid Harry in his mission to vanquish the ultimate evil (if we assume he's working for Dumbledore), that's so much more than being kind and nice, that means he's noble and brave.

I disagree. I think Snape really did not have a choice in the matter if he wanted to continue spying on Voldemort and the DE. Yes, he had a choice and could have said no but that would have sacrificed one of the biggest weapons the order had on Voldemort. If he would have refused to take the UV, then Bellatrix would have had something on him and we know she would have ran right back to Voldemort. Snape would have then been confronted by Voldemort about why he did not take the vow. Now, if Snape really believed that Voldemort intended him to kill Dumbledore in the end anyway, then I do believe Voldemort would start to wonder where Snape's try loyalities lie. In other words, I believe that if Snape would have refused to perform the vow, Snape would not be in a very good position with Voldemort and the DE.


No. Snape could have echoed what Bellatrix was saying: The dark lord asssigned this task to draco, draco must do it, they shouldn't go behind LV's back--exactly was Bellatrix was saying. He would've upset no one. He didn't need to take the unbreakable vow. He did of course, which means that he has a heart and wanted to protect Draco--but not nesscessarily that he is on the good side.

No. Snape could have echoed what Bellatrix was saying: The dark lord asssigned this task to draco, draco must do it, they shouldn't go behind LV's back--exactly was Bellatrix was saying. He would've upset no one. He didn't need to take the unbreakable vow. He did of course, which means that he has a heart and wanted to protect Draco--but not nesscessarily that he is on the good side.
I admit, I was extremely surprised that Snape agreed to take the vow, because as you say he could have echoed Bella and refused. I doubt his motives were focused on his care for Draco. Draco's reactions to him later on in HBP make it clear that there is no great love lost between them.

How readily he agrees points to prior discussion of the possibilty between him and DD IMO. He knows Cissy very well and I think he would have forseen being asked and talked about what his reaction should be with Dumbledore.

Well, I'm also in the Snape is good camp, but I think that now is my chance to hop onto the "if" section of the fence and say something. I think that if Snape really is working for Voldie and not DDm then there is no redemption to be had, if only for the fact that the Order and the trio would not allow it. I just highly doubt anyone would give him the chance to become good again, as they all seem to hate him so much at the end of HBP.

Well, I'm also in the Snape is good camp, but I think that now is my chance to hop onto the "if" section of the fence and say something. I think that if Snape really is working for Voldie and not DDm then there is no redemption to be had, if only for the fact that the Order and the trio would not allow it. I just highly doubt anyone would give him the chance to become good again, as they all seem to hate him so much at the end of HBP.

Either way, they all hate him, and no one would know that he was good. If he comes back to convince him that he's good--either recently been redeeemed or been working for dumbledore for years--it will be very hard to convince them he's currently good.

He would've upset no one.
But he would have upset someone... Bellatrix. She would have been even more suspisious of him that she already is. She wanted him to say no to the UV otherwise she would have never been so keen on the idea. You could tell that she was waiting for him to back out b/c she is very suspisious of his loyalities. She was certain that he was not going to accept. Having one of Voldemort's more trusted DE against you is not a good thing... but to give her a blatant reason not to trust you would be even more stupid. And even though Bellatrix is family with Narcissa, I think if Snape would have said no to the UV, Bella would have ran straight to Voldemort with the information. I think she would rather be in good with Voldemort than protect her family.

Snape was playing the role of a spy which he is very good at. Perhaps he was prepared to die but then he told DD what he had done and DD decided that it should be him after all. We don't know. I'm not saying that this evidence proves that Snape is on the good side or that Snape had no choice in the matter, I'm just saying Snape's choice to stay a spy for the order was hanging in the balance. And has we have been told many times, sometimes the right choice is not the easy choice.

No. Snape could have echoed what Bellatrix was saying: The dark lord asssigned this task to draco, draco must do it, they shouldn't go behind LV's back--exactly was Bellatrix was saying. He would've upset no one. He didn't need to take the unbreakable vow. He did of course, which means that he has a heart and wanted to protect Draco--but not nesscessarily that he is on the good side.

I would agree with you if Snape hadn't been a teacher at Hogwarts for the preceding...what...ten years, maybe more? Snape actually served under Dumbledore, the only man Voldemort truly feared, or so we're told. And I don't think he did that because Voldemort told him to do so. He couldn't have, he was practically dead at the time.

Now I imagine Voldemort got a little suspicious when he heard of this. Of course, Snape insisted he did it to spy on Dumbledore, but Voldemort couldn't be sure of Snapes loyalty to him. He needed ultimate proof. Either proof that Snape was with him, or proof that Snape was with Dumbledore. Snape knew this. He knew that even a small hint of his loyalty to Dumbledore would be enough for Voldemort to make a decision. He couldn't risk that. He needed Voldemort to be absolutely convinced that he was on the dark side, or Dumbledores plan would be ruined. He had to make the Unbreakable Vow.

Here's something I hadn't thought of until now:

Even IF Snape intends to stay on the good side, and took the UV and AKed DD to maintain his cover (and presumably with DD's knowledge and approval?), who in the Order is left that will believe him?

DD was leader of the Order, and DD trusted him. DD is dead. Who is the leader now? Will that person trust Snape, even if Snape DID intend on continuing his double agent work for the order, who is left that will trust him now?

That presupposes Snape knows about the horcruxes, and I personally am still not convinced that is the case. I know, Snape treated Dumbledore´s hand, but Dumbledore was under no obligation to tell Snape how he got injured. And even if he had, the injuries didn´t stem from the horcrux itsself, but from the protection curse around it.

It is certainly a possible function that a double-agent in the Death Eaters' camp could perform.

I haven't decided whether I think Snape knows about the Horcruxes or not. The big reason against it is, as you say, security - if it has been planned that Snape should return to Voldemort, where he will have a lot more exposure to him and thus a lot more of a chance to slip up, it is dangerous to tell him sopmething so important.

On the flip side: if Snape is needed to uncover what the Ravenclaw Horcrux is, then he does 'need to know', despite the risks, and so Dumbledore would have told him.

I can see several reasons that point to Snape knowing in addition to Dumbledore simply telling him so he could spy out information about them for Harry.

1) Snape is an expert in the Dark Arts, and is said to have been interested in and knowledgeable about them since his youth. Like Riddle and Slughorn before him, I must believe he has seen or heard the term before, and it aroused his curiosity. As a Death Eater, he might have access to sources not in the Hogwarts library to satisfy that curiosity.
2) He knows that Voldemort died at Godric's Hollow, and yet was able to return in GoF. How many ways can this be arranged?
3) Snape is likely to have been Dumbledore's source regarding the Diary and Lucius Malfoy. Dumbledore tells Harry 'he has been told' that Voldemort's wrath at Lucius over the destruction of the Diary was terrible to behold. We don't know of anyone else who could be the source of that information.
4) And of course, Snape was involved with the Ring Horcrux. Even if he did not know that it was a Horcrux, and dealt with it has he might with any powerfully cursed object, he has seen it and must have wondered what Dumbledore wanted wioth such a thing, that was worth risking his life over.

1-4 suggest to me that Snape could have figured out the secret without being told.

Now I imagine Voldemort got a little suspicious when he heard of this. Of course, Snape insisted he did it to spy on Dumbledore, but Voldemort couldn't be sure of Snapes loyalty to him. He needed ultimate proof. Either proof that Snape was with him, or proof that Snape was with Dumbledore. Snape knew this. He knew that even a small hint of his loyalty to Dumbledore would be enough for Voldemort to make a decision. He couldn't risk that. He needed Voldemort to be absolutely convinced that he was on the dark side, or Dumbledores plan would be ruined. He had to make the Unbreakable Vow.

The unbreakable vow is behind LV's back. He doesn't know about it. He thinks Draco is to kill DD. Bella and Cissy wouldb't tell him, because they'd be going behind his back. It's all a secret from Voldemort. If LV heard that Snape had refused, he would likely be mad at Cissy for going behind his back to ask.

Here's something I hadn't thought of until now:

Even IF Snape intends to stay on the good side, and took the UV and AKed DD to maintain his cover (and presumably with DD's knowledge and approval?), who in the Order is left that will believe him?

DD was leader of the Order, and DD trusted him. DD is dead. Who is the leader now? Will that person trust Snape, even if Snape DID intend on continuing his double agent work for the order, who is left that will trust him now?

The order members still trust Dumbledore. His being dead doesn't change that. At this moment (meaning when we last saw them, the end of HBP), they believe he has misjudged Snape, but they have a hard time accepting this. Now if Snape proves himself to be good - and I think he will, because I think Dumbledore and Snape worked out some kind of masterplan - the order members will easily be convinced of his "goodness", because in their heart they want Dumbledore to be right. I'm not saying they will receive Snape with open arms right away, not without an explanation, but eventually they'll know he's on their side.

The unbreakable vow is behind LV's back. He doesn't know about it. He thinks Draco is to kill DD. Bella and Cissy wouldb't tell him, because they'd be going behind his back. It's all a secret from Voldemort. If LV heard that Snape had refused, he would likely be mad at Cissy for going behind his back to ask.

How can you be so sure that Voldemort doesn't know? What evidence do we have for this? I think he knew very well that Bellatrix and Narcissa were going to do what they did. In fact I think he never intended for Draco to kill Dumbledore, he knew it was too big a risk to take. By forcing Snape to make the Unbreakable Vow, Voldemort added some extra "safety", while at the same time testing Snapes loyalty. If Snape refused to make the Vow, Voldemort would have known he couldn't trust him. Exit kill DD plan, exit Snape. If, however, he actually made the Vow, Voldemort would be quite sure that DD would actually be killed.

I always understood that no one else other than Dumbledore, Harry, Ron and Hermione (and LV of course) know about the horcruxes and that this is a crucial advantage for Harry. I already said this a few days ago, if we assume Snape is a double agent for Dumbledore, he would not necessarily be let in on everything. The risk that LV could find out somehow would be too big. Especially with the horcruxes. The less people know the better.
I also agree with this. If Snape didn't know about the Horcruxes, I believe this lessens the possibility that he and Dumbledore had some sort of master plan that for some unknown reason included killing Dumbledore. Destroying the Horcruxes would be central to the plan, which only Harry, Ron, and Hermione know about.

I also don't think Harry would need Snape's help in order to get close to Voldemort. He could probably just send Voldemort an owl saying "Meet me in the parking lot" and Voldemort would be there. :)


How can you be so sure that Voldemort doesn't know? What evidence do we have for this? I think he knew very well that Bellatrix and Narcissa were going to do what they did. In fact I think he never intended for Draco to kill Dumbledore, he knew it was too big a risk to take. By forcing Snape to make the Unbreakable Vow, Voldemort added some extra "safety", while at the same time testing Snapes loyalty. If Snape refused to make the Vow, Voldemort would have known he couldn't trust him. Exit kill DD plan, exit Snape. If, however, he actually made the Vow, Voldemort would be quite sure that DD would actually be killed.
But according to what's said in Spinners End, Voldemort didn't know about the Vow.

There are a few key points to understanding why a Snape on the good side would take the unbreakable vow.

-Draco was virtually in a UV himself already. If he didn't kill Dumbledore, Voldemort would kill Draco and probably Narcissa. (Right? Did he say that?) I think it's fair to assume that Dumbledore would protect Draco's life at the expense of his own.
-Voldemort intended Snape to kill Dumbledore in the end anyway. They eventually need a way to deal with the problem of Snape's life/spying vs. Dumbledore's life. It might not have happened immediately, but Dumbledore seems to have thought that if they faked Draco's death, everyone would be fine, in which case the UV doesn't hurt anything. At worst, taking the UV hurries Snape and Dumbledore into figuring out what to do in order to save Draco's life.
-Snape and Dumbledore didn't know the details of Draco's plan, and it would make sense to Snape to think making the UV greatly increases his chances of finding out the details. Finding out the details in advance might very well have made everything turn out ok, if the impression Dumbledore gives on the tower (that faking Draco and Narcissa's deaths will make everything ok) is correct.

-Voldemort intended Snape to kill Dumbledore in the end anyway. They eventually need a way to deal with the problem of Snape's life/spying vs. Dumbledore's life. It might not have happened immediately, but Dumbledore seems to have thought that if they faked Draco's death, everyone would be fine, in which case the UV doesn't hurt anything. At worst, taking the UV hurries Snape and Dumbledore into figuring out what to do in order to save Draco's life.
The Vow meant either Snape's or Dumbledore's death. Faking Draco's death would not have affected it.

The Vow meant either Snape's or Dumbledore's death. Faking Draco's death would not have affected it.

The third clause of the Vow has two conditions attached to it. Snape did not promise flat out to kill DD or die, he promised to do so under certain specuial circumstances enumerated by Narcissa. The first is "Should it prove necessary." So, who decides whether it is necessary for Snape to carry out the deed?

The answer is, we do not know. It could be a nameless, faceless power created by the magic of the Vow. Or Narcissa, who worded the Vow. Or Bella, who bonded it. Or even Snape, who took it. Note that if it is Narcissa or Snape, I am pretty sure they would decide it is not necessary for Dumbledore to be killed, if Dumbledore were responsible for hiding her and Draco from Voldemort and keeping them safe.

Of course, the characters in the book (certainly Dumbledore) do know the answer to this question, because, unlike us, they are experts in the field of magic. So it is possible that Dumbledore came up with the hide Draco plan because he believed it would take Snape off the hook (in addition to being good for Draco) - if the Vow is adjudicated by the Vower or the Vowee.

Of course, the characters in the book (certainly Dumbledore) do know the answer to this question, because, unlike us, they are experts in the field of magic. So it is possible that Dumbledore came up with the hide Draco plan because he believed it would take Snape off the hook (in addition to being good for Draco) - if the Vow is adjudicated by the Vower or the Vowee.

I find a slight fault with this statement. You are assuming that all of the characters in the book know of the unbreakable vow (namely Dumbledore). While the characters may know waht it is
it is, in all likelyhood required to know of the formation of the vow and the actual conditions of the vow itself, as not all vows are the same in terms and therefore outcomes.

The other part of my statement is a little non-sequitor: It seems to me that Harry is the epitome of the manifestation of Murphy's Law: Everything that can go wrong will go wrong.

I believe the third clause says:

"And, should it prove necessary...if Draco should fail...will you carry out the deed that the Dark Lord ordered Draco to perform?"

Since Draco had failed to carry out the deed he had been ordered to perform, Snape had to carry it out or die. That seems pretty straightforward.


But say the special circumstances somehow weren't in play. That means Dumbledore's death wasn't necessary to save Snape's life, and would point towards Snape being evil.

Well, not exactly. It would certainly mean that Snape wouldn't break the vow by not killing Dumbledore, and therfore wouldnt be killed by the "Vow-magic". But imagine the reaction of the other Death Eaters if Snape had stood there and refused to kill Dumbledore.

I believe the third clause says:

"And, should it prove necessary...if Draco should fail...will you carry out the deed that the Dark Lord ordered Draco to perform?"

Since Draco had failed to carry out the deed he had been ordered to perform, Snape had to carry it out or die. That seems pretty straightforward.


But say the special circumstances somehow weren't in play. That means Dumbledore's death wasn't necessary to save Snape's life, and would point towards Snape being evil.

ive started to agree with the various people whp have told me that Dumbledore knew about the vow and made Snape promise to kil him. That way theres no chance of Snape biegn killed and he could still carry out beign a spy. So i think Snapes good

Well, not exactly. It would certainly mean that Snape wouldn't break the vow by not killing Dumbledore, and therfore wouldnt be killed by the "Vow-magic". But imagine the reaction of the other Death Eaters if Snape had stood there and refused to kill Dumbledore.

Well, none of them knew about the vow. If Draco could not do it, Snape, who was obviously in charge, could have ordered someone else to do it.


Snape and Dumbledore didn't know the details of Draco's plan, and it would make sense to Snape to think making the UV greatly increases his chances of finding out the details.
There's no reason why it would. Regardless of whether he was bluffing, Snape knew what Draco's task was by the end of the conversation, I guessed it pretty quickly. Snape could have done the same thing he did with the UV, and question Draco about it, even though he didn't have the UV. Making the vow didn't give him anymore information, because Draco wouldn't tell him anything.

You are right - Snape could have echoed Bellatrix and told Narcissa to get over it. He could have said that Draco got himself into this and he can get himself out. He could have played it safe and not helped anyone but himself, and thrown the entire Malfoy family under a speeding train.

He could have left Narcissa with no one in the world to help her. He could have proven to us all that he was the biggest, baddest Death Eater in all the books - impervious to someone pleading for her son's life, just as Lily pleaded for Harry's life. That would have proven his true character, which would just be one step below Voldemort.

But he didn't do any of those things. :)

Snape helped Narcissa and Draco, in spite of Bellatrix and her suspicians. And that is the echo of Dumbledore on the Tower, offering to help Draco and hide his mother. Snape is acting in the way that Dumbledore would have wanted him to act - by showing mercy.

The Unbreakable Vow is by definition a self-less act, because if you break your word, you die. It can't be seen as just an act of selfishness to save Snape's own skin or prove something.

It proves something - that Snape has a heart.Some echo it is.

Dumbledore tried to help Draco not becoming a murderer.
Snape vowed to help Draco becoming a murderer. There is a very big difference between the two.

I am mystified by the point of this post. You state it like there were only two options for Snape: doing nothing or take the vow. Nonsense IMO. Snape could have helped Draco without taking the vow.

And does it help Draco that Snape took the vow? The making of the vow assures that either Snape or Dumbledore dies. Precisely the two people who could help Draco getting out of a rotten situation. By taking the vow Snape assures that at least one of them isn’t around anymore. How does it help Draco?

If Snape shares Dumbledore’s opinion on how to deal with Draco, if he thinks like Dumbledore that Draco is best served if he is separated from Voldemort then taking the vow doesn’t help. Indeed it complicates matters as we have seen. Snape killed Dumbledore because of the vow and in doing so makes sure that Dumbledore’s plan with Draco isn’t carried out.

Draco had an unpleasant task. If Snape would have wanted to save Draco from Voldemort’s grasp he shouldn’t have taken the vow. What does he achieve with the vow that really helps Draco in not becoming a deatheater?

And is Snape’s promise to help Draco becoming a murderer, to watch over him while Draco attempts murder, really in accordance with Dumbledore’s respect for life?

There is of course a way in Snape helps Draco. If Snape thought that Draco’s best interest were served by doing what Voldemort wants, if Draco’s best interest were served if Draco managed to do Voldemort’s bidding, then taking the vow is helping Draco. But why would Dumbledore think that helping Draco becoming a death eater is a good plan? It runs contrarily to what Dumbledore is trying to do with Draco: helping him not becoming a good deatheater.

How could a good Snape, willing to help Draco, ever take the vow?

Well, none of them knew about the vow. If Draco could not do it, Snape, who was obviously in charge, could have ordered someone else to do it.
And would that make him good in your opinion? If Snape were just going to order someone else to do it, he might as well do it himself. He would be just as responsible.

I presume the OP means this interview (http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/1999/1099-connectiontransc2.htm#p13):


Lydon: Er - one of our connec- ... one of our internet correspondents wondered if Snape is going to fall in love?

JKR: Yeah? Who on earth would want Snape in love with them, that is a very horrible idea. Erm ...

Lydon: But you'd get an important kind of redemptive pattern to Snape

JKR: It is, isn't it ... I got ... There's so much I wish I could say to you, and I can't because it'd ruin ... I promise you ... whoever asked that question, can I just say to you that I'm - I'm slightly stunned that you've said that - erm - and you'll find out why I'm so stunned if you read book 7. And that's all I'm going to say.

Lydon: Mmmm - this is - this is encouraging. (1:17)


Who in their right mind would fall in love with Snape? Which character could he be attracted to? Maybe there will be a new character in DH, the same way the Beauxbatons headmistress was introduced to serve as Hagrid's love interest. Still, I think the whole idea is very creepy. Snape is the farthest thing from a let's-talk-about-our-feelings kind of guy as I've ever seen.

Snape has to have an inkling at least about Draco's 'job' for the year from Voldemort himself. Otherwise I don't think he would talk as if he knew the plan of Voldemort. He also says that the Dark Lord intends him to complete the task set for Draco in the end. If ever Voldemort came to know Snape was saying he knew of things that had not yet been told to him, well it would end his life at that point. What Snape was surpeised into was the unbreakable vow, which left him only with tow options. To kill Dumbledore or to die. And I think that was the year long argument both Dumbledore and Snape had till the very end when Snape is begged by Dumbledore to kill him and keep his place in Voldemort's Inner Circle safe.
He was forced into the vow because of the presence of Bellatrix who would have taken this as further proof of Snape's untrustworthiness.

Well, for that I have my personal theory. :) I don't think that Harry will ever use an unforgivable curse (with success), and he will defeat Voldemort with something else. Also about Grindelwald, the wizarding card says that Dumbledore is famous for defeating Grindelwald, not for killing him. My guess is that he did, but not with an unforgivable.

Anyway my point was that I totally understand that one has to kill for a greater good (in the books I mean), after all it's what Harry has to do, but the unforgivable curses imply a certain unforgivable attitude behind it: cruelty for crucius, killer instinct for AK, domination for imperious. Snape was able to do it, same as Bellatrix, Voldemort and other DE probably. His reasons might be good (or not) but he has the necessary 'evil' state of mind to perform an unforgivable.


I think it has more to do with being powerful and determined enough to perform than curse than about a necessay evil state of mind.

A lot of you'll spoke about the three curses being unforgivable for a reason.

But Killing is killing. Whatever curse you use to kill a person you are still committing an act of evil..
I think the the three curses are called unforgivable because they are the more commonly known dark arts curses that are used to torture, kill and dominate.

Also to kill someone would take a lot of power and Harry as of now isn't all that powerful. But Snape is an extremely powerful and accomplished wizard. And if Dumbledore's death was pre=arranged Snape would have been preparing himself to kill.
I think Snape is good and the fact that he uses an unforgivable curse to kill Dumbledore doesn't add to his list of evils.

Quote:
Originally Posted by zgirnius
I presume the OP means this interview:

JKR Interview
Lydon: Er - one of our connec- ... one of our internet correspondents wondered if Snape is going to fall in love?

JKR: Yeah? Who on earth would want Snape in love with them, that is a very horrible idea. Erm ...

Lydon: But you'd get an important kind of redemptive pattern to Snape

JKR: It is, isn't it ... I got ... There's so much I wish I could say to you, and I can't because it'd ruin ... I promise you ... whoever asked that question, can I just say to you that I'm - I'm slightly stunned that you've said that - erm - and you'll find out why I'm so stunned if you read book 7. And that's all I'm going to say.

Lydon: Mmmm - this is - this is encouraging. (1:17)




Who in their right mind would fall in love with Snape? Which character could he be attracted to? Maybe there will be a new character in DH, the same way the Beauxbatons headmistress was introduced to serve as Hagrid's love interest. Still, I think the whole idea is very creepy. Snape is the farthest thing from a let's-talk-about-our-feelings kind of guy as I've ever seen.

But, there's something to be said for that. I believe, (although I will never fall in love with him) that Snape is - deep down - a good person. Good people do what they think is right. It's not always You-and-I-think-It's-Right, but it isn't always . . . . horrible. I believe Snape behaves within what he thinks is "right."

And we, often, disagree.

But Killing is killing.

Avada Kedavra is a curse powered by the darkest parts of the human soul.

For it to be a triumph in the series reflects only a triumph of hatred, of the darkest parts of a human soul.

Killing is killing does not do justice to the world JKR has created. JKR has not created a world where something that represents the darkest part of a human soul can be righteous behaviour because of the circumstances, because Dumbledore says it is allright.

More to Snape? Most likely. But no murder? Most definitively not. Reconciling the more to Snape with his murder of Dumbledore is probably the best way to analyse what happened and might happen. Denial of what happened doesn’t do the themes of JKR justice.

All in my opinion of course.

No one has to fall in love with Snape for him to be motivated by love. He could love someone else, whether that person loves him or not. He could also love someone without it being romantic love. Harry loves Ron, doesn't he? He would die for Ron, right? But Harry most certainly likes girls (wink wink, nudge nudge).

I believe this is why Dumbledore trusts Snape. At some point, Snape spilled his guts to DD, and DD knows that Snape has love in his heart somewhere, albeit buried and hidden REAL deep.

We shall see if / how Snape redeems himself. It's obviously going to take more than mere words at this point. Snape will have to prove his goodness through some act of immense selflessness for anyone to trust him after Harry watched him AK DD.

Lydon: But you'd get an important kind of redemptive pattern to Snape

JKR: It is, isn't it ... I got ... There's so much I wish I could say to you, and I can't because it'd ruin ... I promise you ... whoever asked that question, can I just say to you that I'm - I'm slightly stunned that you've said that - erm - and you'll find out why I'm so stunned if you read book 7. And that's all I'm going to say.

This BAFFLES Me! What surprises Ms. Rowling? Anything being able to redeem Snape? The fact that one event is refered to as a "Pattern"? Or the fact that Snape being in love would redeem him? I think it was the fact that loving anyone would redeem Snape. Again, This surprised Ms. Rowling. The fact that people would see him as good by simply having a relationship. There is speculation that a teacher has family that we will discover in book 7. I think that it is Snape, and it will not redeem him.

mystic_22 But Killing is killing. Whatever curse you use to kill a person you are still committing an act of evil..
I think the the three curses are called unforgivable because they are the more commonly known dark arts curses that are used to torture, kill and dominate.

I agree with this! Snape did not have kill DD to keep "skreet cred" with Voldy. With the power of DD, and a good Snape, and the Order, and possibly the Ministry (a streatch I know), and anyone else willing, Draco could have been saved without anyone dying. That's what DD was trying to do, and Snape killed him. dead...

It is true that Snape has helped Harry at times, but only BIG dangers that were not Voldy's plan just to keep his comfy spot at Hogwarts. Telling the order about Harry going to the Ministry in OOTP could have been to get them killed as much as it could have been to help Harry. In fact there were an awfull lot of DE's there for a couple of kids, maybe they had planned to wipe out the order as well?

Too much Snape bad canon, no Snape good canon = Snape bad (My caveman logic):drool:

Edit: I must have written this as Klapton was writing. This is not a response to your post In fact Iagree with you. I just don't think He's good.

OK I do no have the time nor the patience to read through 37 pages of this thread to see if my point of argument has been mentioned yet so here goes:

In HBP, Hagrid overhears Snape and Dumbeldore arguing out by the Forbidden Forest. Hagrid says Dumbledore is mad at Snape, and said something along the lines of...you have to carry through and that Snape is trying to get out of what Dumbledore wants him to do. At this point Dumbledore gets angry and ORDERS Snape to do what hes told.

This was perceived by Harry that Snape was tired of acting as a double agent and wanted to give up on the order, but its possible to go the other way.

Perhaps Dumbledore told Snape that Snape might have to kill Dumbledore in order to remain undercover with Voldemort. Snape may have been saying that he could not do it and that there was no way he would kill Dumbledore but Dumbledore ORDERED him to do it if he must. This transpires on the top tower when Dumbledore "pleads" with Snape. He says "Severus please" and for the first time he was begging. He wasnt begging for his life, in fact he was begging that Snape would kill him.

Or Snape is just evil. I dunno but I like to play the devils advocate

This BAFFLES Me! What surprises Ms. Rowling? Anything being able to redeem Snape? The fact that one event is refered to as a "Pattern"? Or the fact that Snape being in love would redeem him? I think it was the fact that loving anyone would redeem Snape. Again, This surprised Ms. Rowling. The fact that people would see him as good by simply having a relationship. There is speculation that a teacher has family that we will discover in book 7. I think that it is Snape, and it will not redeem him. The interview with JK Rowling in which she is surprised by the observation was made back in October of 1999 before Goblet of Fire had even been finished. The interview was before Voldemort had returned to his body and before Snape returned to being a spy. The readers did not know that Snape had once been a Death Eater. They did not know that he had heard the prophecy or that he had returned to Dumbledore's side. JK Rowling may have been surprised that the questioner had picked up on the fact that Snape had done anything wrong that even needed redemning, except maybe to treat Harry badly. Here is the quote:
Lydon: Er - one of our connec- ... one of our internet correspondents wondered if Snape is going to fall in love?
JKR: Yeah? Who on earth would want Snape in love with them, that is a very horrible idea. Erm ...
Lydon: But you'd get an important kind of redemptive pattern to Snape
JKR: It is, isn't it ... I got ... There's so much I wish I could say to you, and I can't because it'd ruin ... I promise you ... whoever asked that question, can I just say to you that I'm - I'm slightly stunned that you've said that - erm - and you'll find out why I'm so stunned if you read book 7. And that's all I'm going to say. (bolded by me) So maybe Snape did redeem himself aready, when he turned spy for Dumbledore back before James and Lily were killed, and that is why JKR was so surprised by the question.

Well, not exactly. It would certainly mean that Snape wouldn't break the vow by not killing Dumbledore, and therfore wouldnt be killed by the "Vow-magic". But imagine the reaction of the other Death Eaters if Snape had stood there and refused to kill Dumbledore.
If Snape was good and wasn't required to kill Dumbledore to prevent his own death, I think he would have tried to overpower the other Death Eaters rather than kill Dumbledore offhand. Snape's role as a double agent is certainly useful, but not at the expense of Dumbledore's life. So I believe that if Snape was truly good, he would have dropped his cover and did whatever he could to save Dumbledore, even if outnumbered. In any case, he would have had the element of surprise going for him.

But if not killing Dumbledore did mean Snape's death because of the Vow, I can see it in Dumbledore's character to put Snape's life before his own.

Dumbledore tried to help Draco not becoming a murderer. Snape vowed to help Draco becoming a murderer. There is a very big difference between the two.
It appears that Dumbledore needed to confront Draco when Draco tried to kill him, so Dumbledore needed to know what Draco's plan was in order to protect Draco. I firmly believe Snape took the vow in order to make it much more likely that he would discover Draco's plan.

I am mystified by the point of this post. You state it like there were only two options for Snape: doing nothing or take the vow. Nonsense IMO. Snape could have helped Draco without taking the vow.
Maybe, maybe not. If he had been unwilling to take the vow, NARCISSA probably wouldn't have trusted him and so Draco definitely wouldn't and there'd be no hope of finding out Draco's plan.

And does it help Draco that Snape took the vow? The making of the vow assures that either Snape or Dumbledore dies. Precisely the two people who could help Draco getting out of a rotten situation. By taking the vow Snape assures that at least one of them isn’t around anymore. How does it help Draco?
A fair point, but the vow only takes effect (in terms of either Snape or Dumbledore dying) when it seems that Draco will fail, at which point Dumbledore, according to his plan, would be able to convince Draco to go into hiding.

If Snape shares Dumbledore’s opinion on how to deal with Draco, if he thinks like Dumbledore that Draco is best served if he is separated from Voldemort then taking the vow doesn’t help. Indeed it complicates matters as we have seen. Snape killed Dumbledore because of the vow and in doing so makes sure that Dumbledore’s plan with Draco isn’t carried out.
I disagree. Look how it turned out. When Snape got to the tower, what else could he have done that would have been better for Draco? He can't take out the other Death Eaters by himself, especially not if the vow kills him. Plus, in getting it over with quickly, he protects the Order members in the fight downstairs and all the children in the school by making the Death Eaters leave ASAP.

Draco had an unpleasant task. If Snape would have wanted to save Draco from Voldemort’s grasp he shouldn’t have taken the vow. What does he achieve with the vow that really helps Draco in not becoming a deatheater?
You seem to be missing the point that things didn't go according to Snape's plan. We know he wanted to know what Draco's plan was. We know he was trying VERY HARD to find out. If that had worked, things would have turned out very different.

And is Snape’s promise to help Draco becoming a murderer, to watch over him while Draco attempts murder, really in accordance with Dumbledore’s respect for life?
To me, it's the lesser of two evils. Dumbledore and Snape know Voldemort will eventually want Snape to kill Dumbledore, and something will need to be done. Now they're put in a very difficult position because Draco was given the job and Draco's life is in terrible danger. I think it's perfectly fair to suggest that Dumbledore would be willing to put his own life on the line to protect Draco and Snape. Similarly, he puts himself through the trials in the cave, even though he's better equipped to handle whatever would happen if Harry drank the potion. Similarly, he makes Harry go along with that even though Harry hates it.

But say the special circumstances somehow weren't in play. That means Dumbledore's death wasn't necessary to save Snape's life, and would point towards Snape being evil.
I'm not sure what you mean by this, but I think you're saying that if there was a loophole in the vow, then Snape didn't have to kill Dumbledore on the Tower. That's a tightly related, but distinct decision from making the vow, though. It seems quite possible to me that even without having taken the vow, Snape might arrive on the scene in the tower and decide that the best course of action to keep the most people safe, the best course of action according to what he understands as Dumbledore's will, is to kill Dumbledore in order to protect Draco, to protect Snape's role as spy, and to get the Death Eaters away from Hogwarts ASAP.

Either Snape kills Dumbledore on the tower, or Snape, Draco, and Narcissa at the very least all die, regardless of the vow. Plus, Dumbledore might die anyway given that he's wandless and surrounded by Death Eaters. AND Bill's lying unconscious downstairs and can't get help until the battle's over, and who knows who else is going to die in that battle if it goes on any longer.

Eventually, Snape is going to be ordered to kill Dumbledore and they'll have to choose which of them dies, or else put Snape in hiding and lose the vital information he can gain as a spy. The only problem created by the vow is to make that decision point come sooner. Meanwhile, Snape gains a very valuable chance to have Draco's trust and use it to protect everyone involved as long as possible.

But Killing is killing. Whatever curse you use to kill a person you are still committing an act of evil..
I think the the three curses are called unforgivable because they are the more commonly known dark arts curses that are used to torture, kill and dominate.

Also to kill someone would take a lot of power and Harry as of now isn't all that powerful.
I agree with you that Snape is good, but I don't agree with this quoted part. Those 3 curses seem to be unforgivable because they have no possible other purposes besides killing, dominating, and torturing. Sectum Sempra can kill, but isn't unforgivable. Harry used it and it would have killed Draco if Snape hadn't rushed to the scene to save him. Plenty of spells could result in someone's death. Heck, Wingardium Leviosa could be used to lift something heavy and then drop it on someone to kill them (like how Ron knocked the troll out, except deadly). The 3 Unforgivables appear to be unforgivable because their use necessitates conscious evil.

It is true that Snape has helped Harry at times, but only BIG dangers that were not Voldy's plan just to keep his comfy spot at Hogwarts. Telling the order about Harry going to the Ministry in OOTP could have been to get them killed as much as it could have been to help Harry. In fact there were an awfull lot of DE's there for a couple of kids, maybe they had planned to wipe out the order as well?

Too much Snape bad canon, no Snape good canon = Snape bad (My caveman logic):drool:
There's no way sending the Order to the Ministry in OotP was part of Voldemort's plan. He wouldn't allow anything that risked losing the prophecy. The prophecy was his priority, he was obsessed.

There's lots of other evidence that Snape's good too. For example, the simplest is that Dumbledore trusted him and it would be a bad moral message if JKR had all her child readers believe that trust was Dumbledore's downfall.

Also, there are subtle things. For example, we know Snape knows about Dumbledore's penseive - he uses it in OotP. But in the end of OotP, when Dumbledore tells Harry the prophecy, he says that Voldemort doesn't know that Dumbledore has the means to remember and show Harry the exact wording of the prophecy. Relatedly, I think it was Lucius at the Ministry who said that Voldemort believed Harry would seek the prophecy for himself, out of curiosity about what it said. Since we the readers didn't know at the time what the prophecy was or that Dumbledore knew anything about it, it was natural not to notice that this implies Voldemort thought Dumbledore would tell Harry about the prophecy, but would not be able to show Harry the exact prophecy. In other words, Voldemort doesn't know about the penseive and thus we can be sure that Snape is holding information back from Voldemort.

I'm not sure what you mean by this, but I think you're saying that if there was a loophole in the vow, then Snape didn't have to kill Dumbledore on the Tower. That's a tightly related, but distinct decision from making the vow, though. It seems quite possible to me that even without having taken the vow, Snape might arrive on the scene in the tower and decide that the best course of action to keep the most people safe, the best course of action according to what he understands as Dumbledore's will, is to kill Dumbledore in order to protect Draco, to protect Snape's role as spy, and to get the Death Eaters away from Hogwarts ASAP.

Either Snape kills Dumbledore on the tower, or Snape, Draco, and Narcissa at the very least all die, regardless of the vow. Plus, Dumbledore might die anyway given that he's wandless and surrounded by Death Eaters. AND Bill's lying unconscious downstairs and can't get help until the battle's over, and who knows who else is going to die in that battle if it goes on any longer.


Let's not forget Harry! Above all else, Dumbledore (and good Snape, if he is indeed good) wants HARRY to survive this confrontation on the tower. When DD immobilzed Harry instead of defending himself, he left himself pretty hosed. Sure, while it was still just Draco, DD could have probably done a wandless, wordless something and pwned Draco. But once the other DE's showed up, Dumbledore was TOAST on that tower. Even IF Snape had never made the vow, one of the other Death Eaters would have finished the job Draco was too weak to do himself. DD had pretty much made his decision that his own life was less important than Harry's, and getting those DEs OUT OF THERE was Harry's only chance of surviving the night.

(As I've said earlier in the thread, I think EVERY DE knows that Harry's butt belongs to LV, and perhaps would not have killed Harry on the spot, but surely they could have easily overpowered him and dragged him away to LV etc.)

There's no way sending the Order to the Ministry in OotP was part of Voldemort's plan. He wouldn't allow anything that risked losing the prophecy. The prophecy was his priority, he was obsessed.


/agree 100%

While LV is proud, and certainly has his flair for drama, he's all about WINNING. His method for taking out good wizards has always been to get them separated from any help, then torturing and destorying them. He's not interested in a "fair fight". He wants to WIN. (The possible exception being letting Harry have his wand in the GoF graveyard, to prove his power etc. But even then, I don't believe he had any idea that he would not win against Harry that night.)

There's lots of other evidence that Snape's good too. For example, the simplest is that Dumbledore trusted him and it would be a bad moral message if JKR had all her child readers believe that trust was Dumbledore's downfall. I disagree. This is an excellent moral message in my opinion. Dumbledore trusted Snape. Dumbledore saw the best in people. Both of these things are positives, done for the best reasons. It is something to admire about Dumbledore. If a person betrays that trust, it sends a moral message about the betrayer, not the betrayed. A person can be betrayed by someone who cares about them and this is a message everyone should know. It happens in life. It happens in the story, too.

And my interpretation of the moral lesson is that a person needs to think for themselves and not except a situation based on blind faith alone. We see Harry and Sirius both thinking for themselves in the story.

Either Snape kills Dumbledore on the tower, or Snape, Draco, and Narcissa at the very least all die, regardless of the vow. Plus, Dumbledore might die anyway given that he's wandless and surrounded by Death Eaters. AND Bill's lying unconscious downstairs and can't get help until the battle's over, and who knows who else is going to die in that battle if it goes on any longer.

Eventually, Snape is going to be ordered to kill Dumbledore and they'll have to choose which of them dies, or else put Snape in hiding and lose the vital information he can gain as a spy. The only problem created by the vow is to make that decision point come sooner. Meanwhile, Snape gains a very valuable chance to have Draco's trust and use it to protect everyone involved as long as possible.
I still think good Snape would have done something to try to help Dumbledore, no matter what the odds. I can't see any other good character in the books immediately killing Dumbledore in that situation. Voldemort is probably planning on killing Draco anyway, which was apparently his plan when he told him to kill Dumbledore. I'm not sure why Narcissa would be placed in danger because of what happened on the Tower.

As for the information Snape can gain as a spy, while it is undoubtedly useful, I wouldn't place it above Dumbledore's life. Draco's trust isn't that important either.


Let's not forget Harry! Above all else, Dumbledore (and good Snape, if he is indeed good) wants HARRY to survive this confrontation on the tower. When DD immobilzed Harry instead of defending himself, he left himself pretty hosed. Sure, while it was still just Draco, DD could have probably done a wandless, wordless something and pwned Draco. But once the other DE's showed up, Dumbledore was TOAST on that tower. Even IF Snape had never made the vow, one of the other Death Eaters would have finished the job Draco was too weak to do himself. DD had pretty much made his decision that his own life was less important than Harry's, and getting those DEs OUT OF THERE was Harry's only chance of surviving the night.
Snape didn't know Harry was there.

There's lots of other evidence that Snape's good too. For example, the simplest is that Dumbledore trusted him and it would be a bad moral message if JKR had all her child readers believe that trust was Dumbledore's downfall.


I disagree. This is an excellent moral message in my opinion. Dumbledore trusted Snape. Dumbledore saw the best in people. Both of these things are positives, done for the best reasons. It is something to admire about Dumbledore. If a person betrays that trust, it sends a moral message about the betrayer, not the betrayed. A person can be betrayed by someone who cares about them and this is a message everyone should know. It happens in life. It happens in the story, too.

And my interpretation of the moral lesson is that a person needs to think for themselves and not except a situation based on blind faith alone. We see Harry and Sirius both thinking for themselves in the story.
I have to agree with Idabomb, Susan. I do agree that it is a moral lesson that "a person can be betrayed by someone who cares about them", but I think we've already been taught that lesson by Peter Pettigrew--it would seem repetitive to extend this to such a huge character as Snape. I also agree that "thinking for yourself..." is a huge lesson that Snape teaches, no matter whether he is good or evil. You can't always trust your instincts and your own perspective can skew the interpretation of events.

:evil:If Snape is evil what moral lessons do we learn about people?

People are just as they seem, even if they do good deeds it is with bad motives and in order to manipulate good people. Always be very careful whom you trust.
Those who have been poorly brought up, teased, those who are ugly and bad mannered and often unkind are not to be trusted. They will/can not change. All the stereotypes are true.
Being surrounded by good and kind people who trust you and want the best for you is not enough to change someone who is a bad seed.
Even those who you trust most (Dumbledore) will let you down in important areas, you should always be cautious and not give away too much of your heart.

Many of these, that are real lessons, we can/did learn from Lord Voldemort and Peter Pettigrew in some fashion.

:angel: If Snape is good the moral lessons we learn are:
Sometimes even people we do not like, and those who are rude and unkind, are 'good' and worthy of trust.
First impressions are often wrong, for things are not always what they seem.
We should reserve full judgment for full knowledge and not be rash about pronouncing someone as evil. Circumstances are often far more complex than we realize.
Love, kindness, good, hope, etc. are very affecting and can change a person.
Especially when we don't have all the facts, we must learn to use common sense and failing that put our trust in good people.
We have been taught similar lessons by Snape in previous books, which would almost be nullified if he turns out evil in the end.

Frankly if Snape does turn out to be evil she is passing up a boatload of lessons that have been perfectly set up, and could be beautifully executed. To me, it just seems out of character for her style as well as her genre.

I think JK Rowling is more interested in telling a good story than teaching lessons in morality, so I wouldn't rely on that when trying to figure out Snape's true intentions. If JK has it planned that Snape really did betray Dumbledore's trust, then I'm sure she'll tell it brilliantly. Whatever happens, she's not going to be bound by any moral lessons.

I've also read similar arguments why she can't kill Harry in the last book, because it would be a bad moral lesson for JK to do so. Bah, I say.

I disagree. This is an excellent moral message in my opinion. Dumbledore trusted Snape. Dumbledore saw the best in people. Both of these things are positives, done for the best reasons. It is something to admire about Dumbledore. If a person betrays that trust, it sends a moral message about the betrayer, not the betrayed. A person can be betrayed by someone who cares about them and this is a message everyone should know. It happens in life. It happens in the story, too.

And my interpretation of the moral lesson is that a person needs to think for themselves and not except a situation based on blind faith alone. We see Harry and Sirius both thinking for themselves in the story.
That's fair. I disagree, but my point wasn't that the moral message as I see it is undeniable. I don't think I've proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Snape has to be good. I just think it's more than fair to say that there's evidence that Snape is good, just like it's more than fair to say that there's evidence that Snape is bad. JKR deliberately put in evidence in both directions to obscure whatever the truth is. I happen to be pretty thoroughly convinced that Snape is good, but that doesn't mean I have to be right.

I still think good Snape would have done something to try to help Dumbledore, no matter what the odds. I can't see any other good character in the books immediately killing Dumbledore in that situation.
I compare it to Harry forcing Dumbledore to drink the potion because Dumbledore ordered him to. I compare it to Harry accepting Dumbledore's demand that if Dumbledore tells Harry to leave Dumbledore and save himself, Harry must do it. Dumbledore is the epitome of good and love and wisdom in the story, and I think most people would agree that putting the welfare of others before yourself is a good. Dumbledore almost has to value Snape, Draco, and Narcissa's lives more than his own.

Also, as for other characters killing Dumbledore in that situation, no one else could be in that situation. No one else has the option of killing Dumbledore to save Draco and get the Death Eaters out of there. You do have a point in that I don't think that Hagrid would be able to accept an order from Dumbledore to kill Dumbledore, but I think that's part of why Snape is characterized the way he is. He's Dumbledore's loose canon secret weapon to me. He's a good Slytherin, someone who'll use any means to do what's right. But also, keep in mind that if Snape is good, then it can be assumed that the conversation Hagrid overheard was Snape saying he didn't want to have to kill Dumbledore, (if the situation arose) so we do have reason to believe that a good Snape has struggled with this decision and hates what he has to do, but knows that he has to do it. This is much like Harry having to force Dumbledore to drink, except on an obviously grander scale.

Voldemort is probably planning on killing Draco anyway, which was apparently his plan when he told him to kill Dumbledore.
I don't think that's supportable. I mean, Voldemort probably thought that Draco would die trying to kill Dumbledore, but I think with Dumbledore dead, Voldemort would be pleased and not kill Draco. Whether Snape is good or bad, he wouldn't let Draco go back to Voldemort if that were the case. Plus, it'd be bad leadership style if Draco's mission basically succeeded and Voldemort killed him anyway. Anyone else given a similarly dangerous mission afterwards would decide their best chance of survival would be to try to hide from Voldemort, rather than do his bidding.

I'm not sure why Narcissa would be placed in danger because of what happened on the Tower.
I'm pretty sure Draco was at least under the impression that if he failed, Voldemort was going to kill Draco and Narcissa both. I could be wrong.

As for the information Snape can gain as a spy, while it is undoubtedly useful, I wouldn't place it above Dumbledore's life.
I don't think I would either, but Dumbledore might. Besides, it isn't just Snape's spying, it's also Snape's life and the other lives.

Draco's trust isn't that important either.
It's not Draco's trust directly that matters, it's the idea that if Draco were to trust Snape, the whole thing can be avoided. Dumbledore would know and be prepared for Draco's plan. Draco would be safe, anyone else involved with the plan could be captured (i.e. the other Death Eaters would be caught and sent to Azkaban and Voldemort would be greatly weakened), and Snape and Dumbledore would be free to plan whatever.


I have to agree with Idabomb, Susan. I do agree that it is a moral lesson that "a person can be betrayed by someone who cares about them", but I think we've already been taught that lesson by Peter Pettigrew--it would seem repetitive to extend this to such a huge character as Snape. I also agree that "thinking for yourself..." is a huge lesson that Snape teaches, no matter whether he is good or evil. You can't always trust your instincts and your own perspective can skew the interpretation of events.
Yeah, I think good Snape as a moral lesson is big. There are several characters in the story who are just flatly bad. Voldemort is practically pure evil. Bellatrix, Greyback, etc. JKR has to be careful to make sure to show that evil people aren't just born evil and unable to help it. With Pettigrew, we're going to get a slightly similar lesson, but he's different. He's unworthy of trust, but still has a kernel of good in him. Snape seems to have started out bad from the beginning, so if he can turn good it's a great lesson about redemption, not judging a book by its cover, and being willing to give 2nd chances.

He's Dumbledore's loose canon secret weapon to me. He's a good Slytherin, someone who'll use any means to do what's right.
:tu: Exactly, Snape fills a place in the Order that no one else can not only because of his position in Tom's camp but because of his personality and Slytherin-ness.
I think JK Rowling is more interested in telling a good story than teaching lessons in morality, so I wouldn't rely on that when trying to figure out Snape's true intentions. If JK has it planned that Snape really did betray Dumbledore's trust, then I'm sure she'll tell it brilliantly. Whatever happens, she's not going to be bound by any moral lessons.

I've also read similar arguments why she can't kill Harry in the last book, because it would be a bad moral lesson for JK to do so. Bah, I say.
:) Sometimes I don't know from one day to the next if I really trust Snape, so while I think what I posted is a good argument for why he prolly is good, I wouldn't bet...much of anything on it. However, I think the previous 6 books show that she is very interested in teaching moral lessons in her books--you can't ignore the dozens of moral themes that are weaved into the plot.
I agree that she won't forfeit her storytelling in order to give us some sermon! But bah humbug has turned into a great redemption in the past :lol:

I'm pretty sure Draco was at least under the impression that if he failed, Voldemort was going to kill Draco and Narcissa both. I could be wrong.

Nope, you are quite right:


"I haven't got any options!" said Malfoy, and he was suddenly as white as Dumbledore. "I've got to do it! He'll kill me! He'll kill my whole family!"

I disagree. This is an excellent moral message in my opinion. Dumbledore trusted Snape. Dumbledore saw the best in people. Both of these things are positives, done for the best reasons. It is something to admire about Dumbledore. If a person betrays that trust, it sends a moral message about the betrayer, not the betrayed. A person can be betrayed by someone who cares about them and this is a message everyone should know. It happens in life. It happens in the story, too.

And my interpretation of the moral lesson is that a person needs to think for themselves and not except a situation based on blind faith alone. We see Harry and Sirius both thinking for themselves in the story.

Maybe harry has got it right, Dumbledore might have only trusted Snape because of his story, Snape tricked him, finite. Snape is BAD, and wont EVER turn good, unless he's really forced into it :) All this evidence only suggests that Snape has been good, but after he's killed Dumbledore, surely he must be in with the Death Eater's far to deep? Maybe he himself is now evil. Well that's what I think anyway.

I disagree. This is an excellent moral message in my opinion. Dumbledore trusted Snape. Dumbledore saw the best in people. Both of these things are positives, done for the best reasons. It is something to admire about Dumbledore. If a person betrays that trust, it sends a moral message about the betrayer, not the betrayed. A person can be betrayed by someone who cares about them and this is a message everyone should know. It happens in life. It happens in the story, too.

And my interpretation of the moral lesson is that a person needs to think for themselves and not except a situation based on blind faith alone. We see Harry and Sirius both thinking for themselves in the story.
I agree with you Susan! I do not find it morally right for children to blindly trust what others believe to be true. Regardless of the persons status. Children should respect and obey Authority figures, but that is a far way from trust.

For example. My second grade teacher told us the order of the planets was Mercury, Mars, Earth, Venus, Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune, Uranus and Pluto (poor Pluto:upset:). I pleaded my case that I thought she was wrong and told her the order was Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune and Pluto. But she wouldn't listen even though I knew I was correct. I obeyed and dropped the argument then learned her order regardless of knowing it was wrong. Sure enough, the next years teacher had them correct as I knew the order to be.

Harry should obey and respect Dumbledore, but he has every right to question Dumbledore's judgement on Snape when Harry's instincts tell him Snape shouldn't be trusted.

That's enough ranting from me.

Harry should obey and respect Dumbledore, but he has every right to question Dumbledore's judgement on Snape when Harry's instincts tell him Snape shouldn't be trusted.
I absolutely agree that Harry should question Dumbledore's judgment on Snape, but there's information that we know as readers, knowing it's a fictional story constructed by someone who has said that when the story's over, we'll all know she's Christian or something to that effect.

Certainly in real life there are cases where person A trusts person B and B betrays A. The key is going to be when we find out why Dumbledore trusts Snape. If Dumbledore had a good reason to trust Snape (and I think that's the case), it better mean that Snape is good. Otherwise well-reasoned trust will turn out to be not just bad but deadly, which doesn't seem right to me. If Dumbledore just wanted Snape to be good, so he trusted a ridiculous story, then yeah the lesson could be that we should be careful about whom we trust.

Keep in mind that while Dumbledore has the reputation of being overly trusting, he was cautious with Tom Riddle. He never really trusted Tom. I think the idea that he's overly trusting is overblown and isn't really his weakness. He only told Harry (and consequently but not directly Ron and Hermione) the whole prophecy and the truth about the Horcruxes. Not even McGonagall, his 2nd in command, knew all that. When he was in danger from the curse protecting the ring, he turned to Snape and Snape helped him. When he was weak from the potion, he told Harry to get only Snape. To me, that doesn't sound like someone who's overly trusting relying on Snape because of a lame excuse. It sounds like someone who's very careful about whom he trusts and has an ironclad reason to trust Snape, more so than even McGonagall.

Is there a single other example of him showing abnormal trust in someone who went bad? I can't think of one. I think the whole "Dumbledore is too trusting" thing is a myth for the Death Eaters, and some readers accept it too.

If Dumbledore had a good reason to trust Snape (and I think that's the case), it better mean that Snape is good. Otherwise well-reasoned trust will turn out to be not just bad but deadly, which doesn't seem right to me. If Dumbledore just wanted Snape to be good, so he trusted a ridiculous story, then yeah the lesson could be that we should be careful about whom we trust. Here is just a hypothethical question. What if the thing that made Dumbledore trust Snape was something that had nothing to do with Dumbledore? What if Snape had made a vow to protect Harry? Would that be enough to make Dumbledore trust him? There is evidence in the books to suggest that Snape may have made a vow to protect Harry. McGonagel said something about an ironclad reason, I believe, that made Dumbledore trust Snape. And what if this ironclad reason had to do with an unbreakable vow. And what if this unbreakable vow was between Snape and a Potter parent, most likely Lily. Would that make Dumbledore trust Snape? And would Dumbledore continue to trust Snape because he saw Snape protecting Harry, as he had vowed he would do. Dumbledore therefore has no reason to doubt Snape. And Snape betraying Dumbledore does not affect the unbreakable vow to protect Harry. It would also explain what Dumbledore meant when he said, "Severus, please". He was remembering the vow to protect Harry and asking Snape to honor it. Harry is the Chosen One, after all.

Remember, this is a hypothetical question - before people start jumping all over this.

I'm not sure. i do believe that Snape is evil.
But I want him to be good. I really really do.
I'm just not sure if that's is all possible.

I compare it to Harry forcing Dumbledore to drink the potion because Dumbledore ordered him to. I compare it to Harry accepting Dumbledore's demand that if Dumbledore tells Harry to leave Dumbledore and save himself, Harry must do it. Dumbledore is the epitome of good and love and wisdom in the story, and I think most people would agree that putting the welfare of others before yourself is a good. Dumbledore almost has to value Snape, Draco, and Narcissa's lives more than his own.
But there's a big difference between Harry forcing Dumbledore to drink the potion and Snape cursing him with AK. Harry didn't know what the potion would do to Dumbledore. He knew it was causing Dumbledore great distress, but not that it was killing him. Harry had reason to believe Dumbledore would survive and recover from the ordeal. But Snape knew that he was killing a dear friend and mentor, permamently removing Dumbledore from the picture (for whatever reason). There's a big difference between the two.


I don't think that's supportable. I mean, Voldemort probably thought that Draco would die trying to kill Dumbledore, but I think with Dumbledore dead, Voldemort would be pleased and not kill Draco. Whether Snape is good or bad, he wouldn't let Draco go back to Voldemort if that were the case. Plus, it'd be bad leadership style if Draco's mission basically succeeded and Voldemort killed him anyway. Anyone else given a similarly dangerous mission afterwards would decide their best chance of survival would be to try to hide from Voldemort, rather than do his bidding.
Voldemort simply wanted to punish Lucius. I doubt he ever expected Dumbledore to be killed, unless Snape was telling the truth when he said Voldemort planned for him to do it in the end. Draco is nothing but a pawn to punish Lucius in Voldermort's eyes.


It's not Draco's trust directly that matters, it's the idea that if Draco were to trust Snape, the whole thing can be avoided. Dumbledore would know and be prepared for Draco's plan. Draco would be safe, anyone else involved with the plan could be captured (i.e. the other Death Eaters would be caught and sent to Azkaban and Voldemort would be greatly weakened), and Snape and Dumbledore would be free to plan whatever.
But the Unbreakable Vow required either Snape or Dumbledore's death. If Snape is good, Dumbledore knew about the Vow and ordered Snape to kill him. So they really weren't free to plan much of anything beyond that.


Certainly in real life there are cases where person A trusts person B and B betrays A. The key is going to be when we find out why Dumbledore trusts Snape. If Dumbledore had a good reason to trust Snape (and I think that's the case), it better mean that Snape is good. Otherwise well-reasoned trust will turn out to be not just bad but deadly, which doesn't seem right to me. If Dumbledore just wanted Snape to be good, so he trusted a ridiculous story, then yeah the lesson could be that we should be careful about whom we trust.
Or it could be that Dumbledore simply made a mistake (re: his quote about his mistakes being big).

Here is just a hypothethical question. What if the thing that made Dumbledore trust Snape was something that had nothing to do with Dumbledore? What if Snape had made a vow to protect Harry? Would that be enough to make Dumbledore trust him? There is evidence in the books to suggest that Snape may have made a vow to protect Harry. McGonagel said something about an ironclad reason, I believe, that made Dumbledore trust Snape. And what if this ironclad reason had to do with an unbreakable vow. And what if this unbreakable vow was between Snape and a Potter parent, most likely Lily. Would that make Dumbledore trust Snape? And would Dumbledore continue to trust Snape because he saw Snape protecting Harry, as he had vowed he would do. Dumbledore therefore has no reason to doubt Snape. And Snape betraying Dumbledore does not affect the unbreakable vow to protect Harry. It would also explain what Dumbledore meant when he said, "Severus, please". He was remembering the vow to protect Harry and asking Snape to honor it. Harry is the Chosen One, after all.

Remember, this is a hypothetical question - before people start jumping all over this.
I've thought of this before (and suggested it and been jumped on). I don't see why Snape couldn't have made a vow though. It could tie in to a potential friendship/relationship/crush with Lily, although I find it hard to see Lily forcing Snape to make an Unbreakable Vow. James could have forced him to do it, though, which would go a long way to explaining Snape's continued hatred of James, and his resentment of Harry while simultaneously protecting Harry. I don't think Sirius knew about it, though. I don't think Dumbledore would have anyone make an Unbreakable Vow, but if Snape had already made one, it would definitely be an iron-clad reason to trust him.

Yeah, I think good Snape as a moral lesson is big. There are several characters in the story who are just flatly bad. Voldemort is practically pure evil. Bellatrix, Greyback, etc. JKR has to be careful to make sure to show that evil people aren't just born evil and unable to help it. With Pettigrew, we're going to get a slightly similar lesson, but he's different. He's unworthy of trust, but still has a kernel of good in him. Snape seems to have started out bad from the beginning, so if he can turn good it's a great lesson about redemption, not judging a book by its cover, and being willing to give 2nd chances.

When Dumbledore visited Tom Riddle in the orphanage, he definitely recognized some potential evil there. He saw Tom's "trophies" from his magical acts of cruelty and knew there was something terribly wrong with this boy.

So, what did DD do? He confronted the evil in a paternal fashion, insisting that Tom give back the items he had "stolen", and never do it again. He then brought Tom to the finest school of wizardry in the world. Why on earth would he bring pure evil to Hogwarts, to be trained in how to exercise his powers with ruthless skill and efficiency?!?!

Because EVERYONE is redeemable -- Or at least, no one is BORN evil. Not even Voldy.

I've thought of this before (and suggested it and been jumped on). I don't see why Snape couldn't have made a vow though. It could tie in to a potential friendship/relationship/crush with Lily, although I find it hard to see Lily forcing Snape to make an Unbreakable Vow. James could have forced him to do it, though, which would go a long way to explaining Snape's continued hatred of James, and his resentment of Harry while simultaneously protecting Harry. I don't think Sirius knew about it, though. I don't think Dumbledore would have anyone make an Unbreakable Vow, but if Snape had already made one, it would definitely be an iron-clad reason to trust him.
That's very interesting, I'd never thought of that possibility. It would make an awesome parallel with the Snape/Narcissa vow! But my question would be, if Snape had made a similar vow with Lily why would Dumbledore not tell Harry about it? Dumbledore always makes it seem as though his reason for trusting Snape is a huge, personl secret--but if he's connected with Harry in this way I think Harry would have every right to know. It would help him to understand the circumstances much better.

But, are you saying that if Snape had this vow with Lily he could still betray Dumbledore and kill him? still be on Voldemort's side? I don't know about that. I suppose it's possible, but for Snape's life to be committed to Harry's safety while he supports the man who wants to kill Harry seems rather crazy.

Good points, Idabomb. I agree. Especially pointing out that the assessment Dumbledore was 'overly' trusting might be too much. And reminding us of Dumbledore´s instinctual carefulness with Tom Riddle.

I do agree also that the ironclad reason we hopefully learn of in DH that made Dumbledore trust Snape, is indicative of Dumbledore being inevitably right or having made one of his emotional mistakes.

Here is just a hypothethical question. What if the thing that made Dumbledore trust Snape was something that had nothing to do with Dumbledore? What if Snape had made a vow to protect Harry? Would that be enough to make Dumbledore trust him? There is evidence in the books to suggest that Snape may have made a vow to protect Harry. McGonagel said something about an ironclad reason, I believe, that made Dumbledore trust Snape. And what if this ironclad reason had to do with an unbreakable vow. And what if this unbreakable vow was between Snape and a Potter parent, most likely Lily. Would that make Dumbledore trust Snape? And would Dumbledore continue to trust Snape because he saw Snape protecting Harry, as he had vowed he would do. Dumbledore therefore has no reason to doubt Snape. And Snape betraying Dumbledore does not affect the unbreakable vow to protect Harry. It would also explain what Dumbledore meant when he said, "Severus, please". He was remembering the vow to protect Harry and asking Snape to honor it. Harry is the Chosen One, after all.

Remember, this is a hypothetical question - before people start jumping all over this.Err - no, I won´t jump over it. :lol:

I´m not sure this would make Dumbledore trust Snape, in the sense of having complete faith in his truthfulness. But, assuming such a scenario, Dumbledore would be sure of Snape fulfilling his vow, to protect Harry in this case, but only for one reason - Snape doesn´t want to die from the vow. Although, of course the fact that he had agreed to make such a vow in the first place speaks for itsself, or better for himself. But, while he might have felt true remorse for having been a DE at the time he supposedly made the vow, things can change. He could be trusted with Harry´s life, but could he be trusted completely? Ah, I don´t know, maybe such a scenario could have convinced Dumbledore. A really ironclad reason. But just that - a hypothesis. :cool:

I don´t think, Snape has made a vow to protect Harry. The UV seems to be, if not dark magic, then at least the darker shade of grey magic. I don´t see Lily or James do something like that. And Snape would be the last person they would ask. A known DE at that time, and James´s arch-enemy from school... I don´t see it. But I didn´t want to jump over it. :relax:

But, are you saying that if Snape had this vow with Lily he could still betray Dumbledore and kill him? still be on Voldemort's side? I don't know about that. I suppose it's possible, but for Snape's life to be committed to Harry's safety while he supports the man who wants to kill Harry seems rather crazy.


If the Vow was to protect Harry, Snape would be free to serve whichever master he pleased, as long as he did all he could to keep Harry safe.

And Snape could have willingly made the vow to protect Lily, his own idea maybe, rather than being forced. Doing it of his own free will would make him seem even more trustworthy.

And Dumbledore wouldn't tell Harry about it because it would not be in Snape's best interest for Harry to know it. Look what happened when Draco learned that Snape made a vow to protect him.

just hypothetical :relax:

But under what circumstance would Snape take such a Vow to protect Harry? I don't see anyone forcing him to do such a thing. Snape also hated James, so I doubt he would take a Vow to protect his son. As for doing it for Lily, that's assuming Snape loved Lily, which is only a theory and not really canon unless revealed in Deathly Hallows.

But under what circumstance would Snape take such a Vow to protect Harry? I don't see anyone forcing him to do such a thing. Snape also hated James, so I doubt he would take a Vow to protect his son. As for doing it for Lily, that's assuming Snape loved Lily, which is only a theory and not really canon unless revealed in Deathly Hallows.
I don't think the UV is "dark magic" it's serious magic, but not necessarily dark--especially since it has to be done with the full consent of both parties.
But, as for why Snape might take such a vow--We know that Snape owed James a life-debt, are you able to demand a specific payment for a life-debt? Could James have said, to pay your life debt to me you must take a vow to protect my son??

But, as for why Snape might take such a vow--We know that Snape owed James a life-debt, are you able to demand a specific payment for a life-debt? Could James have said, to pay your life debt to me you must take a vow to protect my son??

That's interesting! Yes, I think it would be a possibility. Snape could also have taken the Vow in a moment of really sincere repentance for putting Harry in danger - it would be the best he could do to make up for what he had unknowingly done when he told Voldemort about the Prophecy!

I don't think the UV is "dark magic" it's serious magic, but not necessarily dark--especially since it has to be done with the full consent of both parties.
But, as for why Snape might take such a vow--We know that Snape owed James a life-debt, are you able to demand a specific payment for a life-debt? Could James have said, to pay your life debt to me you must take a vow to protect my son??
Isn't Snape owing James a life-debt just a theory? Dumbledore doesn't actually say that, he just says something about Snape helping Harry in PS because James saved his life, which turns out to be the Lupin debacle. But it's never stated that Snape actually owes James a life-debt.

I just don't like basing theories on other theories, that can get a little messy.

Isn't Snape owing James a life-debt just a theory? Dumbledore doesn't actually say that, he just says something about Snape helping Harry in PS because James saved his life, which turns out to be the Lupin debacle. But it's never stated that Snape actually owes James a life-debt.
"Quirrel said he hates me because he hated my father. Is that true?"

"Well, they did rather detest each other. Not unlike yourself and Mr Malfoy. And then, your father did something Snape could never forgive."

"What?"

"Yes ..." said Dumbledore dreamily. "Funny, the way people's minds work, isn't it? Professor SNape couldn't bear to be in your father's debt ... I do believe he worked so hard to protect you this year because he felt it would make him and your father quits. Then he could go back to hating your father's memory in peace ..."

In this book, many of the explanations are somewhat simplified, and we find out more details later on, for example, about the Prank and about life debts. But Dumbledore does link 'Snape protecting Harry to a life debt to James!

No one has to fall in love with Snape for him to be motivated by love. He could love someone else, whether that person loves him or not.
I believe this is why Dumbledore trusts Snape. At some point, Snape spilled his guts to DD, and DD knows that Snape has love in his heart somewhere, albeit buried and hidden REAL deep.


Someone else was kind enough to clue me in about this notion of one-way love for Snape. I had never thought of it that way, that Snape might love without being loved in return. I've always been so against him, but now you all have got me thinking. I was also reminded that Snape fancied Lily, and she was one of the few people who was kind to him in adolescence. Things that happen in our middle school years can really mess us up, so I am now leaning towards giving old Snape some credit. Although, as Klapton says, that love is REAL deep down there somewhere. WAY deep.

Someone else was kind enough to clue me in about this notion of one-way love for Snape. I had never thought of it that way, that Snape might love without being loved in return. I've always been so against him, but now you all have got me thinking. I was also reminded that Snape fancied Lily, and she was one of the few people who was kind to him in adolescence. Things that happen in our middle school years can really mess us up, so I am now leaning towards giving old Snape some credit. Although, as Klapton says, that love is REAL deep down there somewhere. WAY deep.
This is really just conjecture. Jo confirmed that someone had loved Snape before, not that he ever loved anyone in return.
We have no idea whether Snape fancied Lily or not. The only interaction we see between them is in Snape's Worst Memory where he calls her a mudblood. Lily orders James to stop harrassing him, but also laughs at Snape with the others so (even though I don't oppose the theory), there's no canon proof of it.
But, I'm glad you're seeing Snape from a different POV :) As Alan Rickman says "still waters run deep"!

"Quirrel said he hates me because he hated my father. Is that true?"

"Well, they did rather detest each other. Not unlike yourself and Mr Malfoy. And then, your father did something Snape could never forgive."

"What?"

"Yes ..." said Dumbledore dreamily. "Funny, the way people's minds work, isn't it? Professor SNape couldn't bear to be in your father's debt ... I do believe he worked so hard to protect you this year because he felt it would make him and your father quits. Then he could go back to hating your father's memory in peace ..."

In this book, many of the explanations are somewhat simplified, and we find out more details later on, for example, about the Prank and about life debts. But Dumbledore does link 'Snape protecting Harry to a life debt to James!
No. Dumbledore doesn't call it a life-debt, so we can't be certain that's what it is. He also says that Snape considers them even after the first year. I don't see this situation the same as Harry and Peter, which I believe is specifically called a life-debt (if anyone has the direct quote...). There are debts, and then there are life-debts, and I don't believe we're ever given the details of what specifically makes a life-debt a life-debt. If it's just saving someone, then a lot of people owe Harry life-debts many times over.

Someone else was kind enough to clue me in about this notion of one-way love for Snape. I had never thought of it that way, that Snape might love without being loved in return. I've always been so against him, but now you all have got me thinking. I was also reminded that Snape fancied Lily, and she was one of the few people who was kind to him in adolescence. Things that happen in our middle school years can really mess us up, so I am now leaning towards giving old Snape some credit. Although, as Klapton says, that love is REAL deep down there somewhere. WAY deep.
I know a lot of people believe Snape fancied Lily, but is this ever actually stated in the books?

Isn't Snape owing James a life-debt just a theory? Dumbledore doesn't actually say that, he just says something about Snape helping Harry in PS because James saved his life, which turns out to be the Lupin debacle. But it's never stated that Snape actually owes James a life-debt.

That is correct. I don't think we are supposed to think that 'magic at its deepest and most impenetrable' is at work with Snape, only Peter (that's how the connection between Harry and Peter is described by Dumbledore in PoA). The debt described in PoA (you can see anabel's post for the quote) is described as more something Snape has taken on himself, for his own peace of mind.

We know the saving of a life does not automatically cause a magical life debt to form, since Rowling indicated in an interview that Ginny does not have a life debt to Harry (even though he saved her life in CoS). So the idea that Snape has one is certainly just a theory, not canon.

We know neither the exact circumstances under which James saved Snape (there are a lot of unanswered questions about the 'prank'), and even if we did, we do not know which, if any, of those circumstances would mean Snape has a life debt.

Also, I wonder when and why, after Harry's birth, James and Snape would have had this conversation in which Snape agreed to protect Harry (with or without a Vow). Why would James expect Snape could do a good job of protecting Harry? I don't believe he knew Snape was a Death Eater (Sirius still does not know in GoF), so he seems an odd choice.

No, nothing in the books. We're also not supposed to discuss Snape/Lily. ;)

I, personally, don't see the need to try to define Snape as either good or evil at this point. I see him as having been both, done both and honored both sides equally at different times. Sometimes these 'good' and 'evil' actions even occur simultaneously, when he commits ambiguous action that can later be defined as beneficial to either side depending on his later choices.

I see him as a character who, until his murder of Dumbledore, maintained perfect balance between both and who had he ability to declare himself as having been loyal to whatever side came out ahead. The apparent closure of his 'good' alternative is not irreversible- it will simply take greater effort to do so. What remains to be seen, I believe, is if he will take the 'easy' choice- to keep to the path of service to 'evil', or the 'right' choice, to make a much greater effort to go agaisnt his current apparent loyalty.

Either way, I believe this character's ultimate purpose in the story is to somehow reverse his initial betrayal that set the prophecy in motion. What I think the choices for his character are will be whether he does this unwillingly, by way of failure while in the service of evil or willingly, by a betrayal of same service. Only then will his actions ultimately (and retroactively) be defined as having shown the character as good or bad overall.

No. Dumbledore doesn't call it a life-debt, so we can't be certain that's what it is. He also says that Snape considers them even after the first year. I don't see this situation the same as Harry and Peter, which I believe is specifically called a life-debt (if anyone has the direct quote...). There are debts, and then there are life-debts, and I don't believe we're ever given the details of what specifically makes a life-debt a life-debt. If it's just saving someone, then a lot of people owe Harry life-debts many times over.

Actually, the term 'life-debt' is a fan shorthand invented to describe the relationship that exists between Harry and Peter (and, speculatively, between assorted other characters including Harry and Snape, it is a popular subject for speculation). It is never used by Dumbledore (or any other character) in the books.

What Dumbledore actually says about Peter is:


"Pettigrew owes his life to you. You have sent Voldemort a deputy who is in your debt.... When one wizard saves another wizard's life, it creates a certain bond between them... and I'm much mistaken if Voldemort wants his servant in the debt of Harry Potter."

"I don't want a connection with Pettigrew!" said Harry. "He betrayed my parents!"

"This is magic at its deepest, its most impenetrable, Harry. But trust me... the time may come when you will be very glad you saved Pettigrew's life."



I know a lot of people believe Snape fancied Lily, but is this ever actually stated in the books?

Nope! It is just a popular fan theory, which the mods prefer us not to discuss in this thread.

I, personally, don't see the need to try to define Snape as either good or evil at this point. I see him as having been both, done both and honored both sides equally at different times. Sometimes these 'good' and 'evil' actions even occur simultaneously, when he commits ambiguous action that can later be defined as beneficial to either side depending on his later choices.


I don't tend to judge a character as good or bad based on their actions alone, but based on their motives. For example, even if, objectively, the Unbreakable Vow ended up hurting the good side, it is not a 'bad' action by Snape if he did it for good intentions (as in some of the scenarios we've been debating recently). Likewise, even if for some unforseen reason it turns out to really help the good side (I dunno, by inspiring Cissy to confess to Harry that her hand mirror is the Ravenclaw Horcrux, or something) if Snape did it to get on Voldemort's good side because he is playing both sides and wants to keep his options open, it is not a good action.

If you're just saying we should take a wait and see attitude - well, in a sense I agree, until we know his whole story I don't think we can judge him fairly. But it is a lot more fun to try and guess his whole story now. :D

No, I'm saying that at this point, his future decisions will retroactively define the intent and morality of his earlier actions and decisions. Not so much his motivations- we don't have those and won't have time to get too much into them. I'm afraid he will quite likely be largely defined by his actions with the motivations for these left mostly to the reader. That is expedient for a character for whom we can't be spared too much definitive backstory- some greater points, but not the details. I believe that not being able to define him at this point was intentional on the part of the author, since the point of future decision will serve to define him in retrospect later.

We can always speculate, also, on what that decision will be, and how it will a affect how others ultimately define him themselves.

I think the deciding factor will be action, however. Later, after it's all done, we'll be able to simply say, was Snape good? Yes, because he did this/ no, because he tried to do that. Either way, though, I believe he will serve his role in the plot. The question I see is if his character will do so by or against his will.

Snape has to have an inkling at least about Draco's 'job' for the year from Voldemort himself. Otherwise I don't think he would talk as if he knew the plan of Voldemort. He also says that the Dark Lord intends him to complete the task set for Draco in the end. If ever Voldemort came to know Snape was saying he knew of things that had not yet been told to him, well it would end his life at that point. What Snape was surpeised into was the unbreakable vow, which left him only with tow options. To kill Dumbledore or to die. And I think that was the year long argument both Dumbledore and Snape had till the very end when Snape is begged by Dumbledore to kill him and keep his place in Voldemort's Inner Circle safe.
He was forced into the vow because of the presence of Bellatrix who would have taken this as further proof of Snape's untrustworthiness.

I'm not sure that Snape necessarily has any idea whatsoever of what Voldy had discussed with Draco. We already know for certain that Snape deals in deception otherwise why the need to be such an accomplished occlumens? Perhaps he was making educated GUESSES as to Voldy's plan with little Draco. Im sure he had a general IDEA to what the plan accomplished. First what does Voldy want? Hmmm lets think 1: He wants to kill Harry that is obvious. But who else would you get rid of if you felt they stood in the way of accomplishing that goal? Wouldn't you try to put a plan in motion to get the only person you have ever feared out of the way to ensure a more successful attempt at harry's life? Why would anyone try to destroy someone that has such easy access to the only person that ever put fear into your heart? I could be wrong but i don't recall that Snape ever told Draco that Voldy ever intended for Snape to complete the task at hand. I agree with your point that Snape was caught off gaurd as far as the unbreakable vow with Narcissa and Bellatrix. However, had Snape had an idea about Voldy's plans it should not have come as so much of a surprise... Reason being is that he and Lucious were fellow DE; and as far as circumstantial evidence goes they were somewhat close due to the fact that Snape always favored Draco. This point could be chunked up to the fact that Draco was a Slytherin or that Snape and Lucious were closer than expounded upon during the books. I don't feel that Snape and Dumbledore were arguing about that specifically. Perhaps there are othere circumstances that J.K.R. has not revealed as of yet. As far as Snape murdering Dumbledore, that assured Snape a spot of utmost respect from Voldy as well as more trust. Snape managed to get Dumbledore out of the way for Voldy's main goal (as I see it) to be more easily achieved.

No, I'm saying that at this point, his future decisions will retroactively define the intent and morality of his earlier actions and decisions. Not so much his motivations- we don't have those and won't have time to get too much into them. I'm afraid he will quite likely be largely defined by his actions with the motivations for these left mostly to the reader. That is expedient for a character for whom we can't be spared too much definitive backstory- some greater points, but not the details. I believe that not being able to define him at this point was intentional on the part of the author, since the point of future decision will serve to define him in retrospect later.

We can always speculate, also, on what that decision will be, and how it will a affect how others ultimately define him themselves.

I think the deciding factor will be action, however. Later, after it's all done, we'll be able to simply say, was Snape good? Yes, because he did this/ no, because he tried to do that. Either way, though, I believe he will serve his role in the plot. The question I see is if his character will do so by or against his will.

This position is inconsistent. If Snape's actions are what matters, but we agree that his role in the plot is to make up for his reporting of the Prophecy, then his actions will be good. Against his will or by his will is all about motivation of actions.

To clarify, when I speak of motivations, I don't mean Rowling will somehow, in Book 7, go through and tell us what Snape was thinking at every moment of every book when he did anything of any importance to the main story. I mean the big picture. As a Good Snaper, I expect confirmation of the sincerity of Snape's remorse and an explanation of the reason for it (he didn't want to be involved in the killing of baby? Felt he owed James? She WHo Must Not Be Named? Some other mystery twist?). And I expect to learn what Dumbledore knew in Book 6 - about Draco, and about the Vow, and specifically, what the argument in the Forest was about. With these little bits in hand, I would know Snape's motivations, generally.

Actually, I agree. My main point is that right now, we have a series of actions awaiting clarification- almost everything he has done so far could add up to overall 'goodness' or 'badness', depending on how his position is resolved. I see definitve action as doing that, as opposed to exposition.

If Snape inadvertently provides a key to Voldemort's downfall while pursing the opposite course, his actions would not, in hindsight, be shown to have been for the good- just the result. Do you see what I mean? His intention will have been for ill, despite a beneficial unintended result. That is is just as possible as deliberate good action at this point, as far as I see.

I used to see many people with signatures that gave page numbers that proved why Dumbledore trusted Snape. I wrote them down but lost them....can anyone help me here? If someone knows someone who had that signature, or has it themself, I would be much obliged to see the page numbers again so I can put them in a safe place and then look them up for myself! I'm sure it would be an important addition to this thread--Why DD trusted Snape! It's very important to the question of whether he is good or evil! Thanks, whoever can help me!

I agree with you that Snape is good, but I don't agree with this quoted part. Those 3 curses seem to be unforgivable because they have no possible other purposes besides killing, dominating, and torturing. Sectum Sempra can kill, but isn't unforgivable. Harry used it and it would have killed Draco if Snape hadn't rushed to the scene to save him. Plenty of spells could result in someone's death. Heck, Wingardium Leviosa could be used to lift something heavy and then drop it on someone to kill them (like how Ron knocked the troll out, except deadly). The 3 Unforgivables appear to be unforgivable because their use necessitates conscious evil.




Sectum Sempra.. is not a ministry registered curse.. So we don't know if it would be considered an unforgivable curse or not..
As for Wingardium Leviosa killing somone it would be an accidental death.
The spell is not supposed to kill.
There are probably a lot of other dark arts speels that kill people, but how many dark arts spells do the common people know? But these three are the known spells that kill.
It is not using the spell that is unforgivable.. it is what the spell does that is unforgivable.
Killing is not pardonable. Whather you kill someone with Avada Kedavra or by slitting his throat you are still committing an unpardonable act.
Obviously you would need to be evil to kill someone right? Because killing in itself is evil.
But here Harry kills Voldemort to save the world it would not be considered evil..
Like wise if Snape kills Dumbledore because of Dumbledores plans it should not be considered evil as well.

Here is another theory..
In book 6 Snape tells Bellatrix that he prevented Quirrel from taking the stone because he didnt know about Voldmeorts possesion of Quirrel.

But in book 1
Snape asks Quirrel.. "Where do you're loyalties lie?"

Now doesn't that sound almost like Snape was questioning Quirrel's loyalty to Dumbledore.. because his loyalty to the headmaster was being threatened by someone else..
It almost sounds like Snape knew that Quirrel was doing this for someone else..

Otherwise he could have just said "Why do you want the stone.."..or something to that affect..

But asking Quirrel a question that gives him an option to choose between two leaders makes me think that Snape knew about Voldemort and he purposely thwarted Voldemort because at the end of the day Snape is good and his loyalties lie with Dumbledore.:)

that's up to him, becasue he's free from dumbledore and he has to decide if he'll stay put or go to the other side.

But in book 1
Snape asks Quirrel.. "Where do you're loyalties lie?"

Now doesn't that sound almost like Snape was questioning Quirrel's loyalty to Dumbledore.. because his loyalty to the headmaster was being threatened by someone else..
It almost sounds like Snape knew that Quirrel was doing this for someone else..

Otherwise he could have just said "Why do you want the stone.."..or something to that affect..

But asking Quirrel a question that gives him an option to choose between two leaders makes me think that Snape knew about Voldemort and he purposely thwarted Voldemort because at the end of the day Snape is good and his loyalties lie with Dumbledore.:)

Yes! I've always thought that line about loyalties is a pretty good indication that Snape is on DD's side.

I also think his annoyed reaction when Umbridge asks him in his inspection lesson to speculate on why DD has repeatedly turned him down for the DADA job is a clue to his loyalties - he could be annoyed because she is touching on his DE past in front of the students, but (partly because he hasn't appeared to be anxious to hide his DE connection in the past - he actually showed his Dark Mark to the Minister in front of Harry in GoF, so he must know that Harry already knows and could have told the other students) I'm not convinced by that - I think he's annoyed because she is inviting him to be disloyal to Dumbledore.

Oddly enough, one of the things that most convinces me that Snape is good is his repeated attempts to have Harry expelled from Hogwarts. As far as I recall, the only other character who repeatedly tries to have Harry removed from Hogwarts is Dobby (OK, admittedly Malfoy tries to get him expelled a couple of times, but this is by no means a consistent tactic, and he's equally keen to get him into danger, which Snape appears not to be) and in Dobby's case it's for Harry's own protection.

It seems as if the following applies for most of this thread:

good = loyal to Dumbledore
bad = loyal to Voldemort

Snape has shown loyalty to Dumbledore. Therefore Snape is good. But he has also shown loyalty to Voldemort, after all, he was a Death Eater and he did run to Voldemort to tell him what he heard of the prophecy. Therefore Snape is bad.

He has been both.

Yes! I

Oddly enough, one of the things that most convinces me that Snape is good is his repeated attempts to have Harry expelled from Hogwarts. As far as I recall, the only other character who repeatedly tries to have Harry removed from Hogwarts is Dobby (OK, admittedly Malfoy tries to get him expelled a couple of times, but this is by no means a consistent tactic, and he's equally keen to get him into danger, which Snape appears not to be) and in Dobby's case it's for Harry's own protection.


I agree.
Even a lot of things that Snape says to Harry most insultingly ofcourse makes me think that Snape is good.
He tells Harry that only Fools wear their heart oin their sleeves. While Harry takes it as a dig about his weaknesses Snape is actually constantly giving Harry hints on how to battle Voldmeort.
In the 6th book even s Snape sprints across the grounds trying to escape he keeps screaming out the fact that Harry has to master Non Verbal Spells and has to learn how to close his mind.
It seems to me that right uptill the last minute Snape was trying to help him.

In the 6th book even s Snape sprints across the grounds trying to escape he keeps screaming out the fact that Harry has to master Non Verbal Spells and has to learn how to close his mind.
It seems to me that right uptill the last minute Snape was trying to help him. But how do you interpret the next couple of lines, where Snape turns on Harry and Buckbeak attacks Snape to protect Harry. This indicates to me that Harry was in danger of being injured.

But how do you interpret the next couple of lines, where Snape turns on Harry and Buckbeak attacks Snape to protect Harry. This indicates to me that Harry was in danger of being injured.

Buckbeak thinks erroneously that Snape is trying to attack Harry? Buckbeak is responding to the fact that Snape had insulted Harry (we know that Hippogriffs are very sensitive to vebral insults), not to the physical danger posed by Snape?

i don't know why we are even discussing this topic, there is so much evidence to prove that snape is on the side of good!
oh and btw, it was dumbledore who made the unbreakable vow using polyjuice potion not snape as u will all find out in the last book.

i don't know why we are even discussing this topic, there is so much evidence to prove that snape is on the side of good!
oh and btw, it was dumbledore who made the unbreakable vow using polyjuice potion not snape as u will all find out in the last book.


Um.. wow now that quite a prediction! But then Dumbledor would have promised to kill himslef and that didnt technically happen did it??

Um.. wow now that quite a prediction! But then Dumbledor would have promised to kill himslef and that didnt technically happen did it??

Well, if Snape's Avada Kedavra was fake, there had to be a cause of death for Dumbledore...breaking the Unbreakable Vow would fit.
Also, if taking an Unbreakable Vow prevented you from dying in any other way, I think they might enjoy quite the vogue in the Potterverse. If you are interested, there is an entire thread (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?t=97481)devoted to this theory and its implications.

Buckbeak thinks erroneously that Snape is trying to attack Harry? Buckbeak is responding to the fact that Snape had insulted Harry (we know that Hippogriffs are very sensitive to vebral insults), not to the physical danger posed by Snape?
Actually, Snape did attack Harry. He hit him with a white hot something across his face that knocked Harry to the ground.

Actually, Snape did attack Harry. He hit him with a white hot something across his face that knocked Harry to the ground.
Yep, but from what I read it seemed as if he attacked him out of pain, anguish and rage due to what Harry said to him, in essence, Harry provoked him.

I think Snape is good. He is like an undercover cop. They have to appear nasty looking to fit in with the people you're trying to catch.

I think Dumbledore trust him with his life.

Um.. wow now that quite a prediction! But then Dumbledor would have promised to kill himslef and that didnt technically happen did it??

Not necessarily - ordering Snape to kill him, and thus ensuring Draco's mission would succeed, also counts.

It seems as if the following applies for most of this thread:

good = loyal to Dumbledore
bad = loyal to Voldemort

Snape has shown loyalty to Dumbledore. Therefore Snape is good. But he has also shown loyalty to Voldemort, after all, he was a Death Eater and he did run to Voldemort to tell him what he heard of the prophecy. Therefore Snape is bad.

He has been both.
That's an interesting point. Following that idea, I would point out that Dumbledore seems to acknowledge that fact while Voldemort does not. I think it's interesting to compare what Voldemort believes about Snape to what Dumbledore believes about Snape. Dumbledore knows that at the time of the prophecy, Snape was loyal to Voldemort and tells Harry that. Voldemort believes Snape has been loyal to Voldemort all along. Relatedly, Dumbledore appears 100% certain of Snape's loyalty while Voldemort does not.

Also, regarding the idea that was floating a while back that Snape took an unbreakable vow to protect Harry, I don't buy it. If it happened, I could see it as a reason for Dumbledore to trust Snape, but I don't see anyone demanding a vow like that from Snape. If they demanded it from Snape, why not demand it from Pettigrew when he became the secret-keeper or something? What I'm saying is, if the good guys think it's ok to use UVs, then they should use them more. The fact that we don't ever see good guys use them and the fact that Arthur Weasley thinks they're very bad are enough to convince me that civilized people don't expect people to prove that they're trustworthy with their lives.

Um.. wow now that quite a prediction! But then Dumbledor would have promised to kill himslef and that didnt technically happen did it??
How can you make an Unbreakable Vow to kill yourself? If you break it, you die anyway?!?!

I think it is really pushing it to suggest that Snape's Avada Kedavra, directed at Dumbledore with a look of hatred on his face, and resulting in Dumbledore's immediate death, wasn't what killed Dumbledore. He may have been dying anway, and he may well have made an agreement with Snape whereby Snape had to do the deed if and when it became necessary, but that was an Avada Kedavra and Snape did it and Dumbledore died.

snape knew that dumbledore had made the unbreakable vow, and was gonna die, and i think the "revulsion & hatred etched on his face" was because he knew that dumbledore was about to die. read that thread about dumbledore impersonating snape in spinners end...it is so right! if we get to the last book and the theory ends up wrong i will be SO shocked.
plus theres also the fact that snape has never done anything to harm harry. in ps he saves him from being killed on the broom, in ootp if snape hadn't alerted the order that harry & co had gone into the ministry they would all be goners. if he was really on voldys side all he had to do was pretend he didn't understand harry message. why, if he was evil, would he do that? then in hbp he refused to harm harry on his way out of the school, using voldy as an excuse. the coward remark he got so wound up about was because he showed a lot of bravery in helping dumbledore doing everything he could to thwart voldys plans and saving harrys life, then harry yells that at him after all hes done..who wouldn't be mad?
i lv snape, hes a fab character, and if i'm wrong about him i will be so gutted!

snape knew that dumbledore had made the unbreakable vow, and was gonna die, and i think the "revulsion & hatred etched on his face" was because he knew that dumbledore was about to die. read that thread about dumbledore impersonating snape in spinners end...it is so right! if we get to the last book and the theory ends up wrong i will be SO shocked
I suspect a lot of theories will turn out to be wrong in the end. The CoS canteen will be serving Humble Pie to anyone who is ready to eat it! ;)

lol...am always eating humble pie - is nice to hear somewhere round here serves it!

but that was an Avada Kedavra and Snape did it and Dumbledore died.
yep, and if Snape hadn't done it, he would've died from the UV.

Also, regarding the idea that was floating a while back that Snape took an unbreakable vow to protect Harry, I don't buy it. If it happened, I could see it as a reason for Dumbledore to trust Snape, but I don't see anyone demanding a vow like that from Snape. If they demanded it from Snape, why not demand it from Pettigrew when he became the secret-keeper or something? What I'm saying is, if the good guys think it's ok to use UVs, then they should use them more. The fact that we don't ever see good guys use them and the fact that Arthur Weasley thinks they're very bad are enough to convince me that civilized people don't expect people to prove that they're trustworthy with their lives. I agree with you that civilized people don't expect people to prove that they're trustworthy with their lives, as you have stated. That is why I feel that Snape was so motivated to show how sorry he was about the prophecy that he was the one who approached Lily with his plan.

Originally Posted by anabel View Post
but that was an Avada Kedavra and Snape did it and Dumbledore died.
yep, and if Snape hadn't done it, he would've died from the UV.Oh, I'm not disputing that. I'm just pointing out the facts as I see them, since there is a school of thought that maintains Snape didn't actually kill Dumbledore. His reasons for doing it remain a mystery, but there can't be any doubt that Snape did it, IMO.

I really think that Snape is still on our side...that is, he was acting on Dumbledore's order...why? I have a very strong faith in the "Love for Lily" theory...it's just too strong and intense a scene to ignore...

Besides, I don't think Snape really is that evil, I mean bad...

PS: I need your help, pls read my post here (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?t=101691)...thanks...

Oh, I'm not disputing that. I'm just pointing out the facts as I see them, since there is a school of thought that maintains Snape didn't actually kill Dumbledore. His reasons for doing it remain a mystery, but there can't be any doubt that Snape did it, IMO.

I agree that Snape killed him, but not that this is beyond a doubt. The emphasis on nonverbal spells in this book, certain details of the scene, and the presence in the text of numerous hypothetical alternative causes of death (the blackened hand/ring curse, green potion, fall from Astronomy Tower, not to mention the Unbreakable Vow theory we have recently been discussing) leave this in the air, in my opinion. Until Rowling stopped being coy about it, I was even considering that Dumbledore might be alive (though I would have given it odds no better than 1 in 20).

I'm going to agree with whimzee. The "Love Lily" Theory has been a strong factor in my mind.

He may have been acting on Dumbledore's orders that night.

Another one? come on people, he has to be good because then harry's first impression of snape would of been right on, and dumbledore would have been wrong( I have a fealling an unbreakable vow was involved in his deal with snape ).

P.S.
because so many of these threads exist can we just have one big poll