Did the Malfoys get what they deserved in DH?

[HRW]

Originally Posted by Goddess_Clio

Lily and James trusted the safety of their family to an idea suggested by Dumbledore and they were killed. Lily and James were being heavily protected by the Order and were still killed by Voldemort. I think Sereena makes a very good point that there wasn't very good evidence for being taken into Dumbldore's/the Order's protection and living to tell the tale.

That's clearly not true. Dumbledore's original idea involved him being the secret 'keeper himself and if James and Lily had taken that route then they wouldn't have been killed. They refused Dumbledore's offer and went with Sirius (and then Peter) which was what eventually got them killed. They were not killed because Dumbledore's protection wasn't good enough but because they trusted the wrong person. If he was as desperate as people made him out to be then he would have accepted the offer.

Originally Posted by Sereena

I disagree because that has nothing to do with her conscience. Narcissa was raised as an aristocratic woman whose purpose in life was to produce the next generation of purebloods through a respectable marriage. Being a terrorist wasn't part of the plan, IMO. She doesn't want to get her hands dirty and was probably raised to believe this was a man's job. Or at least, not the job of the upper class (remember that most pureblooded family preferred to support Voldemort from afar and not actually get involved themselves).

I am not sure what your point is here. All the Malfoy's are as bad as each other, all of them are prejudiced beyond belief and as long as their own family was safe did not give a toss about anyone's life. There are 2 differences as I said

1. Narcissa never attempts to kill unlike her son and husband. This does not make her a good person at all but just makes her better than the other two.

2. In DH she risks her life by lying to Voldemort to save her son. Again I stress that this does not suddenly make her a good person or wash away all her misdeeds. She shows a bit of selflessness and slight disregard for her own life which the other two don't.

I think these two reasons put her slightly above Draco and Lucius.

[Sereena]

Originally Posted by HRW

I am not sure what your point is here.

My point was that Narcissa is not one bit better than Draco or Lucius. This is where you and I disagree if I understand you correctly.

In DH she risks her life by lying to Voldemort to save her son. Again I stress that this does not suddenly make her a good person or wash away all her misdeeds. She shows a bit of selflessness and slight disregard for her own life which the other two don't.

She shows courage but she doesn't show selflessness, IMO. It is no longer in her interest to obey Voldemort so she no longer obeys him.

As for her killing, she is just like Draco in this respect, IMO. Narcissa admits to Bellatrix that "there is nothing I wouldn't do anymore" which to me indicates that she would kill Dumbledore herself if she thought it would help her son. Which is why I don't see the distinction you are trying to make between her and Draco.

Originally Posted by MerryLore

I'm not so sure. Harry survived Voldemort because of Lily's love for her son. And one explanation of why Voldemort was so evil is because his mother died and he never knew a mother's love. Not all mothers love their children, and JKR did reward Harry and Lily because of that love.

I'm not saying a mother's love is worthless or not important in a person's life. I'm just saying that loving your children is something we expect parents to do not something which makes them heroes and automatically gives them a moral highground. Like others have said, Narcissa had no maternal feelings towards other people's children (as opposed to both Molly and Lily, probably).

Not sure I agree. Bellatrix didn't seem to think this way, and she had the same upbringing. I do think Narcissa chose to stay at home and support her husband and raise their son, however, just as Molly chose housewife.

Bellatrix was an exception, IMO. Otherwise Voldemort would have more women in his ranks. But this is neither here nor there. The main point was that it isn't Narcissa morality which keeps her from committing murder, IMO.

[MerryLore]

Originally Posted by Sereena

I'm not saying a mother's love is worthless or not important in a person's life. I'm just saying that loving your children is something we expect parents to do not something which makes them heroes and automatically gives them a moral highground. Like others have said, Narcissa had no maternal feelings towards other people's children (as opposed to both Molly and Lily, probably).

But it was Lily's love for her own son (and not other people's sons) which saved Harry from Voldemort. She defied him and refused to step aside. In Narcissa's case, it was her love for her son which caused her to defy Voldemort and lie directly to him. Lily was only thinking of Harry at that moment, and was willing to die so Voldemort would let him live. Narcissa put her very life at risk to try to get to Draco. I see a parallel, and I don't see Lily being superior to Narcissa at that particular moment. And while we do like to think most mother's would do the same, that's not to say they would. We'd like to think most wizards would not buy into pure blood ideology, but many did.

[FurryDice]

Originally Posted by Goddess_Clio

I don't think it's ever explicitly stated that she was a DE. I suppose a very telling moment would be whether she was at the table with Voldemort at the beginning of... DH? When Voldemort killed Charity Burbage. If she was there I would believe she's a death eater as it was my understanding that all in attendance at that moment were in his inner circle and to be in his inner circle you had to be a death eater.

She was present, she grabbed Lucius' hand at some point - I think when Voldemort asked for his wand.

What do you define as "quite young?"

Now, there's an interesting question. I think it seems that the definition of "quite young varies from character to character.

I find it interesting that people don't like the Malfoys for only marrying people who share their own beliefs when those beliefs are societally agreed upon to be morally bad, when there are tons and tons of examples of people who are unwilling to marry someone if they don't share the same religion or same cultural background. Not trying to spark a debate or religious discussion and am not meaning to insult anyone, it's just an observation that I find very interesting. To me, the two examples are exactly the same, the only difference is that society claims one set of beliefs to be "bad" or "wrong" and one set of beliefs to be "good" or "acceptable."

Largely because the Malfoys are extremist bigots who look down on, and tried to murder those they considered inferior. Wanting to marry someone of your own religion is one thing. Holding prejudice against people of other backgrounds is a complete other thing.

Originally Posted by Sereena

IMO, people are supposed to love their own children, you don't get a cookie for loving your kids. I agree that not every mother would do what Narcissa has done but the fact that she loves Draco doesn't make her less evil, IMO. The same reasoning can be applied to Draco, he loved his family and tried to protect them by killing Dumbledore. He thought he could redeem his father by proving himself. That shows love as well.

My issue with the idea of maternal love redeeming Narcissa is that it doesn't mean she had a conscience, or empathy. She was a parent herself, yet she was just fine with her family ripping other families apart, murdering other peoples' children. She was fine with being a mob-wife type, an enabler and turning a blind eye.

Or at least, not the job of the upper class (remember that most pureblooded family preferred to support Voldemort from afar and not actually get involved themselves).

To be specific, that is most pureblood families who supported Voldemort. There were plenty of pureblood families who were against Voldemort. Pureblood and bigot are not synonymous. Pureblood and upper class are also not synonymous.

I think he shouldn't have trusted him because he wa taught that Dumbledore was his main enemy (Lucius always wanted DD removed from his position) and because Dumbledore and his people were the reason his father was arrested and indirectly contributed to Voldemort's rage towards his family.

Lucius' crimes were the reason he was arrested. Lucius was not arrested because of Dumbledore. Lucius was arrested because he was a criminal, and this was one crime for which he could not lie his way out of punishment. Lucius' own fault, not Dumbledore's. However, I could see how Draco would blame Dumbledore - he had quite a persecution complex, as the pureblood bigots tended to have.

The only reason Draco wanted to become a DE was because he hoped to help his father. There is no doubt in my mind that he saw the job as a bit glamorous as well but I think his main reason was connected to his family. It wasn't out of a desire to murder people.

Draco wanted to become a DE before his parents were ever in danger. He was very, very keen on their crimes, and on helping. He was enthusiastic about murdering Dumbledore, until he figured out that his family were in danger.

Originally Posted by MerryLore

You can love someone without condoning their actions. Snape loved Lily but didn't always agree with her choices.

Difference being, Snape didn't agree with Lily's choice to work against him and his fellow terrorists, rather than condoning their crimes, and Narcissa just didn't want Draco to get his hands dirty. I don't see how the two are comparable.

Not sure I agree. Bellatrix didn't seem to think this way, and she had the same upbringing. I do think Narcissa chose to stay at home and support her husband and raise their son, however, just as Molly chose housewife.

Personally, I think that Bellatrix and Narcissa responded in completely different ways to Andromeda getting out of their fanatically prejudiced family. Bellatrix seems to have responded by turning to murder and torture of those she despised, while Narcissa seems to have determined to be the perfect little mobwife to Lucius.

Originally Posted by MerryLore

But it was Lily's love for her own son (and not other people's sons) which saved Harry from Voldemort. She defied him and refused to step aside. In Narcissa's case, it was her love for her son which caused her to defy Voldemort and lie directly to him. Lily was only thinking of Harry at that moment, and was willing to die so Voldemort would let him live. Narcissa put her very life at risk to try to get to Draco. I see a parallel, and I don't see Lily being superior to Narcissa at that particular moment. And while we do like to think most mother's would do the same, that's not to say they would.

Difference being, Lily was always opposed to Voldemort. Lily fought against Voldemort, thrice defied him, because she didn't want any family to suffer. Whereas Narcissa was perfectly fine with being party to the suffering of others, as long as she and her family didn't get a dose of their own medicine. Lily had a conscience, Narcissa did not. Both protected their sons, but Lily was completely and unequivocally opposed to the evil of Voldemort and his followers, whereas Narcissa was a DE sympathiser who supported their crimes. Lily would not want any parent to suffer because of Voldemort, whereas Narcissa was untroubled by the evil her family committed, and the suffering they brough to other families.

We'd like to think most wizards would not buy into pure blood ideology, but many did.

IMO, most did not. Those that did were the exception. The bigots were not in a majority, at all, IMO. Those that did were not looked on well by decent members of the community. Unless of course, they, like the Malfoys, had money to throw at the Minister, in which case Fudge fawned over them.

[MerryLore]

Originally Posted by FurryDice

Difference being, Snape didn't agree with Lily's choice to work against him and his fellow terrorists, rather than condoning their crimes, and Narcissa just didn't want Draco to get his hands dirty. I don't see how the two are comparable.

Snape still loved her, just as Narcissa loved Draco.

Difference being, Lily was always opposed to Voldemort. Lily fought against Voldemort, thrice defied him, because she didn't want any family to suffer. Whereas Narcissa was perfectly fine with being party to the suffering of others, as long as she and her family didn't get a dose of their own medicine. Lily had a conscience, Narcissa did not. Both protected their sons, but Lily was completely and unequivocally opposed to the evil of Voldemort and his followers, whereas Narcissa was a DE sympathiser who supported their crimes. Lily would not want any parent to suffer because of Voldemort, whereas Narcissa was untroubled by the evil her family committed, and the suffering they brough to other families.

Personally, I see all of this as additional information, and not applying to that one particular moment in time. I'm not comparing the overall character of Lily vs. the overall character of Narcissa - only the depth of their love for their sons, and how I believe the author shows it to be relevant, and not necessarily ordinary and to be expected.

It was Lily's love for her own son (and not other people's sons) which saved Harry from Voldemort. She defied him and refused to step aside. In Narcissa's case, it was her love for her son which caused her to defy Voldemort and lie directly to him. Lily was only thinking of Harry at that moment, and was willing to die so Voldemort would let him live. Narcissa put her very life at risk to try to get to Draco. I see a parallel, and I don't see Lily being superior to Narcissa at that particular moment.

IMO, most did not. Those that did were the exception. The bigots were not in a majority, at all, IMO. Those that did were not looked on well by decent members of the community. Unless of course, they, like the Malfoys, had money to throw at the Minister, in which case Fudge fawned over them.

Many also chose to pretend it wasn't happening again and turned a blind eye until they had no other choice. Not everyone fought to bring down Voldemort even after they learned the truth.

[Hes]

Remember not to stray from the topic at hand, which is the Malfoys and if they were punished enough at the end of DH. Lily, Snape or any other character not related to the Malfoys have no place here. There is a reason why Snape and Lily are contained to their own threads.

Also...for your consideration... A mother's Love

[asdfasdf17]

Originally Posted by ShadowSonic

But the marriage was shown to be a genuinely loving one, would that mean it was one of those rare arranged marriages wherein the people would've fallen in love anyways?

I just wanted to point out that many cultures nowadays still have arranged marriages and the couples almost always end up falling in love, it's not a rare thing It's kind of hard to explain how two almost-strangers (sometimes there not always strangers either) can fall in love but people learn to work it out and stuff because they are open to the idea. I know in the West it's a different mindset and people may not see that as being a good thing, but in other parts of the worlds people don't mind having an arranged marriage; it's considered normal and okay

As for relating this to the thread, I would say that possibly, if Pure-Bloods do have arranged marriages (although I don't think they do; I'll explain that below) than they may have a positive mindset about arranged marriages which allows it to work out all right (i.e Lucius and Narcissa, if it were an arranged marriage).

Originally Posted by HRW

The order members that were killed weren't being kept safe, they were all risking their life in various ways. If it was just about his family's protection then I don't see why he could not have trusted one of the best Wizards of all time. The main issue here is though he is proud of what he has achieved, he is proud of having proven everyone wrong. He always wanted to do this which is my whole point.

On the whole I never felt sorry for Draco, probably pitied him at best.

I think the main reason he didn't trust Dumbledore was because his whole life Dumbledore's been the 'enemy' supporting Muggle rights and all that. He's never been told good things about Dumbledore from his parents or anyone so not only does he have a negative view of Dumbledore but he might have assumed Dumbledore would automatically hate him too (not him specifically but his type people i.e pure blood supremacist). So it would be hard to trust someone when you see them that way for so long.

Originally Posted by FurryDice

Draco didn't have the stomach to murder Dumbledore face to face. IMO, he would not have been troubled in the least if his poisoned mead or cursed necklace had killed Dumbledore. Nor if it had killed anyone else, for that matter. IMO, his hesitation in killing Dumbledore had little to do with conscience. Unless Draco had somehow managed to delude himself that if you don't have to look them in the eye when you murder them, it isn't murder. Perhaps he told himself that poisoning wasn't really murder, because you don't have to see the consequences of your actions first hand.

I think I can quite easily imagine Draco being the type to think that murder wasn't really murder unless it was face-to-face. He had a father who probably murdered many people so it wouldn't be too surprising if his mind worked that way.

Bellatrix's marriage was not arranged, IMO - I think JKR said that Bellatrix married a prejudiced pureblood because she was expected to marry a prejudiced pureblood. That doesn't mean that their families chose the match. Perhaps Bellatrix and Rodolphus Lestrange found it suited both of them to marry.

There's also no evidence that Narcissa and Lucius had an arranged marriage. IMO, the closest it came to being an arranged marriage was this - both Lucius Malfoy and Narcissa Black would, by choice, only become involved with someone they knew their extremist families would approve of. They would not consider a relationship with someone who was not just like them. It doesn't mean that their marriage was arranged, IMO, it just means that their "values" and priorities limited them to quite a small circle of potential partners.

Yeah, I've more leaned towards the idea that arranged marriages don't typically happen with the pure bloods anymore (I assume they once did as they were normal everywhere in the Muggle world once too). The pure bloods come off as holding on to wizarding 'tradition' more so arranged marriages could still happen but in the case of those couples, I don't really see it. I mentioned it in a post a long time ago but I'll say it again that I never really saw Bellatrix as being the type to let her parents decide who she'll marry, she probably just found a suitable husband herself. As for Narcissa, I like to think it was more of a love marriage type thing.

[HRW]

Originally Posted by Sereena

She shows courage but she doesn't show selflessness, IMO. It is no longer in her interest to obey Voldemort so she no longer obeys him.

I disagree. She shows both courage and selflessness. She risked her life, put herself in danger for her son. That is selflessness and it took courage to defy Voldemort. She does not care about her interests at that point, all she is worried about is Draco's well being and if obeying Voldemort meant Draco's safety she would've done that as well.

Originally Posted by Sereena

As for her killing, she is just like Draco in this respect, IMO. Narcissa admits to Bellatrix that "there is nothing I wouldn't do anymore" which to me indicates that she would kill Dumbledore herself if she thought it would help her son. Which is why I don't see the distinction you are trying to make between her and Draco.

I still think there's a huge difference. What that quote also tells us is that, it's only now that her son's life is in danger that she's ready to do anything, this wasn't normal for her. We see in that scene that she is almost hysterical.

Would she have killed Dumbledore if it helped her son? I have no doubt she would have but she doesn't and for me that still makes a difference. Harry wanted to kill Sirius in his rage for betraying his parents but he never does. Molly kills Bellatrix when her daughter is almost killed by her. Xenophilius Lovegood has no problems in handing Harry over to Lord Voldemort (i.e a certain death sentence) if it meant he could have his daughter back. And before anyone points it out, I am not saying Narcissa is suddenly comparable to Molly because quite obviously Molly was fighting for the right side.

I think we will just have to agree to disagree.

[wolfbrother]

[staff edit]

Originally Posted by FurryDice

IMO, poison in the way Draco used it is so random that no matter who drinks it, it is attempted murder. Anyone could have ended up drinking it - if Dumbledore had actually got the bottle of mead, he might have shared it with the staff, or with Snape on one of their little chats. IMO, it's an indiscriminate attempt at murder. No matter who was hurt, Draco was attempting murder, and the excuse of "I was trying to murder someone else" is hardly going to wash with a court. It doesn't make his actions any less serious, IMO. Draco was attempting to commit murder - it doesn't suddenly not become attempted murder because the wrong person was hurt. Draco was attempting murder. Not GBH. He did something that could have been fatal - Katie's injuries could have been fatal, the poisoning could have been fatal to Ron. I see no way that Draco gets off the hook of attempted murder there. He was attempting murder. People almost died because of his attempts. Attempted murder.

Ok, you're right. So, I asked this to a couple of law students (after spending waaay too much time convincing them that this was *NOT* homework and that I wasn't even a student....geez.. ) and they said that prosecutors can invoke something called "transferred intent" and do so for attempted murder (especially if they have a stronger case for the person who got hurt). Not sure how much I agree with it, given that it has some weird exceptions but I guess its fair in this case.

He didn't know that an object that could open the Chamber of Secrets would harm the person used to do so? IMO, a seasoned Death Eater and fan of dark magic could hardly be so naive. In any case, at the very least, he planned to destroy Ginny's life to get at Arthur - if he had been successful in framing her, she would have been expelled.

An object filled with dark magic need not harm the person that uses it. I agree though that Ginny would have been expelled if tracked to her.

IMO, that is blaming the victim. Ginny writing in the diary was not the trigger. Lucius giving her the diary was the trigger. Lucius was solely and completely responsible. Not Ginny. Lucius gave Ginny the diary in the hope that she would write in it - he planned for terrible things to happen at Hogwarts.

Ginny writing in the diary was the trigger. That is fact though that doesn't mean that Ginny was in any way responsible for what happened. I don't know if Lucius knew that something had to be written in the diary for it to act. I think if he knew that something had to be written, he was taking a pretty big gamble that Ginny would write in it. I don't think he'd take such a chance on such a valuable object.

All he ever needed to do was declare a search of students' belongings, and the diary would be found among Ginny's things. Not that complicated.

The diary wasn't anything special and wouldn't raise suspicion. Unless there was some test to check if an object had dark magic. If so, I wonder why it wasn't done by Dumbledore in the first place.

Because there was no concrete proof to arrest him. And Fudge was in his pocket, gushing over Malfoy's generous donations and generations of pureblood.

I was talking about the threats he made to the board members. Pretty sure if I ever did something like that, I'd be facing more problems than simply being fired.

One was a genocidal fanatic, and one turned against genocidal fanatics. Personally, I see that as a big difference between them.

Yea, they picked different sides but it was motivated by similiar feelings.

Should one say that of all the Death Eaters? There's nothing to be gained by keeping them away from the public? There's nothing to be gained by showing future wannabe terrorists that their crimes are unacceptable and will be punished? That they cannot get away with destroying innocent lives?

No, the other death eaters wanted Voldemort to win and were still a danger to society. The Malfoys were an exception.

The ignominy of being able to return to their lives, while good people like Fred Weasley, Colin Creevey, Lupin and Tonks were denied that opportunity. I don't see that as such a great hardship for the Malfoys. Alive and not in prison? IMO, it would be downright ungrateful and self-centred of them to consider that ignominous.

You would know by now that the Malfoys were not your average family. Its true that it would be ungrateful of them but for a family that had such influence, social status, "honor", it would be pretty devastating for them to be lose it all and their freedom given by the person they fought against.

Now that I think of it, that's probably the reason for Draco's curt nod at the end. I hoped that it was because he'd outgrown the childhood enmity after all the things that had happened. But now it looks more like forced acknowledgement because he's owes Harry for his freedom.

[FurryDice]

Originally Posted by asdfasdf17

As for relating this to the thread, I would say that possibly, if Pure-Bloods do have arranged marriages (although I don't think they do; I'll explain that below) than they may have a positive mindset about arranged marriages which allows it to work out all right (i.e Lucius and Narcissa, if it were an arranged marriage).

By purebloods, I'm assuming you mean pureblood supremacists? Because we see plenty of purebloods who did not have arranged marriages. And there's nothing to suggest that the idea of arranged marriage was commonplace in the wizarding world.

I think I can quite easily imagine Draco being the type to think that murder wasn't really murder unless it was face-to-face. He had a father who probably murdered many people so it wouldn't be too surprising if his mind worked that way.

Unfortunately for Draco, murdering someone from a distance with poison is still absolutely, 100% murder, no matter how much he wants to delude himself.

Yeah, I've more leaned towards the idea that arranged marriages don't typically happen with the pure bloods anymore (I assume they once did as they were normal everywhere in the Muggle world once too).

I'm not so sure about that - the wizarding world seems far more inclined to treat woman as equals, and not as objects to be bartered off in marriage. Two women and two men founded Hogwarts, as equals. Boys and girls alike attended Hogwarts, ever since its foundation.

Originally Posted by HRW

I disagree. She shows both courage and selflessness. She risked her life, put herself in danger for her son. That is selflessness and it took courage to defy Voldemort. She does not care about her interests at that point, all she is worried about is Draco's well being and if obeying Voldemort meant Draco's safety she would've done that as well.

Why is it selfless? Narcissa showed herself to be just like her fellows - she was content with the destruction of many, many families, with the murder of children, just so long as it wasn't hers. She didn't want to taste her own medicine. I don't see her as selfless, I see her as yet another DE/DE sympathiser, who plays god, who has exceptions, who lacks empathy.
I think it was brave of her to lie to Voldemort, but I think it doesn't come remotely near making her a good person. Bellatrix kept quiet about Narcissa's visit to Snape - does that make Bella a good person, because Narcissa is the one person on the earth she doesn't want to see tortured and murdered?

And before anyone points it out, I am not saying Narcissa is suddenly comparable to Molly because quite obviously Molly was fighting for the right side.

I think that makes all the difference - Molly and Lily were fighting for the right side, Narcissa was not. Molly and Lily would not have been okay with anyone's fmaily being destroyed by Voldemort. Narcissa was like a mobwife, content to benefit from the suffering of others, content to turn a blind eye, as long as her own family didn't get a dose of their own medicine.

Originally Posted by wolfbrother

Ginny writing in the diary was the trigger. That is fact though that doesn't mean that Ginny was in any way responsible for what happened. I don't know if Lucius knew that something had to be written in the diary for it to act. I think if he knew that something had to be written, he was taking a pretty big gamble that Ginny would write in it. I don't think he'd take such a chance on such a valuable object.

Lucius gave the diary to Ginny, in the hope that it would open the Chamber of Secrets, in the hope that it would harm, even kill children, and in the hope that she would be held responsible. Lucius was responsible for what happened. He put a blank diary in a preteen girl's belongings - the chances were, that she would write in it. Even if she did not use it as a diary initially, chances were, she would write something in it - even if it were just to record her homework. Lucius was fully expecting that terrible things would happen because of his scheme - hence, Dobby's warning to Harry. Lucius knew that this object involved a young Riddle, therefore he probably knew that it could be triggered by writing in the diary.

An object filled with dark magic need not harm the person that uses it. I agree though that Ginny would have been expelled if tracked to her.

The diary wasn't anything special and wouldn't raise suspicion. Unless there was some test to check if an object had dark magic. If so, I wonder why it wasn't done by Dumbledore in the first place.

I see a contradiction here.

I was talking about the threats he made to the board members. Pretty sure if I ever did something like that, I'd be facing more problems than simply being fired.

Sadly, Lucius had the Minister in his pocket. And it would be his word against theirs.

Yea, they picked different sides but it was motivated by similiar feelings.

But a completely opposite set of values.

No, the other death eaters wanted Voldemort to win and were still a danger to society. The Malfoys were an exception.

How do we know the other DEs still wanted Voldemort to win? How do we know they were still a danger to society? Perhaps some of them were frightend at seeing the wizarding community en masse fight back. Perhaps some of them were afraid that their children might be in the castle, when Voldemort threatened to murder everyone in it. Those who did not go to Azkaban snuck back into society after the first war, and pretended they were decent human beings. None of them, apart from Bellatrix and her gang, seem to have carried out any evil schemes while Voldemort was in exile. Apart from Lucius Malfoy with the diary. Anyone who can do the things the Malfoys and their ilk did is a danger to society. And even if they valued their skins too much to commit future hate crimes, it doesn't undo what they did. It doesn't mean they should go unpunished.

You would know by now that the Malfoys were not your average family. Its true that it would be ungrateful of them but for a family that had such influence, social status, "honor", it would be pretty devastating for them to be lose it all and their freedom given by the person they fought against.

I see that as truly and utterly ungrateful. I see that as letting their egos get in the way of a grasp on reality, and in the way of a conscience. Regret and guilt are too much to hope for, if this is the attitude of the Malfoys after the war. The Malfoys were alive and not in Azkaban, where they surely deserved to be for their crimes. IMO, it would be a complete indication that they had learned nothing from their experiences if they were ungrateful enough to think it a disgrace. They got off lightly, at losing their social status - nobody could seriously expect society to respect such terrorists as important members of the community. IMO, it would be a sad state of affairs if the wizarding community fought against bigots and power hungry thugs like the Malfoys, fought to make a safer future, and then turned around and elevated a family of bigots back to a position of honour. If justice had been served after the first war, the Malfoys would have lost their status then, and Lucius imprisoned.

They were lucky they were free to participate in the wizarding community, they were lucky to be alive, while far better people lay in their graves. And if they did not even realise that much, I think they learned nothing whatsoever.

[Sereena]

Originally Posted by HRW

I disagree. She shows both courage and selflessness. She risked her life, put herself in danger for her son. That is selflessness and it took courage to defy Voldemort. She does not care about her interests at that point, all she is worried about is Draco's well being and if obeying Voldemort meant Draco's safety she would've done that as well.

I agree with FurryDice. Making exceptions for people you like is not selfless, it is the height of selfishness. A parent who is okay with other children dying as long as her own doesn't have to is utterly selfish, in my view. Narcissa's deeds helped Harry but that was just serendipity. For Narcissa to redeem herself she would have had to leave Voldemort and help the Order win the war, for example. I can see why she didn't do so but what she did do is not enough for me at least to consider her better than Draco or Lucius (though I agree that she's not as bad as Bellatrix for example).

[Thomas83]

A very important message in the books is that it are your choices that make you what you are, not what you are born into. The Malfoys were horrible people through the books, but probably they learned all their bad habits from their parents and their parents from theirs, and so forth.

Eventually the love from Lucius and Narcissa for Draco proved to be stronger than their loyalty to Voldemort and his politics. Evil lost from love, maybe the only "magic" Voldemort just didn't understand, and underestimated.
In my opinion the Malfoys redeemed themselves by making the right choice in the end. It even played a pretty important role in defeating Voldemort.

[FurryDice]

Originally Posted by Thomas83

A very important message in the books is that it are your choices that make you what you are, not what you are born into. The Malfoys were horrible people through the books, but probably they learned all their bad habits from their parents and their parents from theirs, and so forth.

But they made their choices - they chose to become terorrists. If one is to say that choices are an important theme, and that your choices are more important than what you are born as, then the Malfoys' crimes cannot be palmed off on past generations. The buck has to stop somewhere.

Eventually the love from Lucius and Narcissa for Draco proved to be stronger than their loyalty to Voldemort and his politics. Evil lost from love, maybe the only "magic" Voldemort just didn't understand, and underestimated.
In my opinion the Malfoys redeemed themselves by making the right choice in the end. It even played a pretty important role in defeating Voldemort.

I don't think that redeemed them. Love for one person, or even two does not make anyone good. Not when the same person is willing to destroy the lives of others. Not when that person has not the slightest shred of empathy for others losing their loved ones - and murders other peoples' loved ones. Love for their own family unit does not redeem the Malfoys, IMO, because they had not a shred of empathy. They had not the slightest bit of conscience. Everything they did was self-serving, and more often than not, malevolent and harmful to innocent people. The Malfoys did not make the right choice - they made a choice based purely and utterly on self-preservation. Right and wrong, good and evil did not come into it. If Draco had been sitting with his fellow thugs when Voldemort "murdered" Harry, then Narcissa would have told Voldemort he was alive. IMO, Narcissa's lie was not redemption, it was Narcissa doing something that would benefit her.

[wolfbrother]

Originally Posted by FurryDice

Lucius gave the diary to Ginny, in the hope that it would open the Chamber of Secrets, in the hope that it would harm, even kill children, and in the hope that she would be held responsible. Lucius was responsible for what happened. He put a blank diary in a preteen girl's belongings - the chances were, that she would write in it. Even if she did not use it as a diary initially, chances were, she would write something in it - even if it were just to record her homework. Lucius was fully expecting that terrible things would happen because of his scheme - hence, Dobby's warning to Harry. Lucius knew that this object involved a young Riddle, therefore he probably knew that it could be triggered by writing in the diary.

He was taking a pretty big risk if he was gambling on a chance that she would write in it. Not only that she was going to write in it but also keep quiet when things started happening. As it was, she came very close to doing so. Dobby's warnings imply that Lucius was sure that the diary was going to do its job.

I'm not sure if this was the intended method for the diary to work. Did Voldemort intend to write his daily activities in the diary or assume that someone else was going to do so ? I think that is a ridiculously complicated way for the diary to do its job. I expect Voldemort to have had a quicker method to have the Riddle horcrux start its job. Presumably, Voldemort intended to trigger it himself and then have the diary smuggled into Hogwarts where it could do its job.

IMO the way it played out in CoS was unexpected and the Riddle horcrux having sentience rolled with it. In the end, Riddle abandoned going after muggleborns and focused on getting Harry. IMO Lucius knew nothing about the details of how the diary worked, just that as Voldemort told him, the book would open the Chamber of Secrets and cause muggleborn deaths. He thought getting it into Hogwarts was enough. If he thought that diary required some preparatory acts, he would have done so himself or asked Draco to do it.

I see a contradiction here.

I'm afraid I don't. The book was either easily identified or it wasn't. If it was, then, yet again Dumbledore is responsible for endangering students. If not, Lucius had to come up with some way in order to pin the blame on Ginny and the Weasleys.

Sadly, Lucius had the Minister in his pocket. And it would be his word against theirs.

That's an awful lot of power the Minister has if he could brush aside allegations from multiple people.

How do we know the other DEs still wanted Voldemort to win? How do we know they were still a danger to society? Perhaps some of them were frightend at seeing the wizarding community en masse fight back. Perhaps some of them were afraid that their children might be in the castle, when Voldemort threatened to murder everyone in it. Those who did not go to Azkaban snuck back into society after the first war, and pretended they were decent human beings. None of them, apart from Bellatrix and her gang, seem to have carried out any evil schemes while Voldemort was in exile. Apart from Lucius Malfoy with the diary. Anyone who can do the things the Malfoys and their ilk did is a danger to society. And even if they valued their skins too much to commit future hate crimes, it doesn't undo what they did. It doesn't mean they should go unpunished.

The other death eaters fought for Voldemort right until the end and they fled when he lost. Unlike the Malfoys who did not fight and did not flee. Remaining right at the heart of your enemy camp, especially after defeat is one of the stupidest things you can do. The Malfoys didn't care. They were done.

No kids (of the death eaters) other than Draco and his friends stayed back and there was no "wizarding community en masse" fightback (enough for them to be scared into fighting). The good side comprised of students, Order members and their relatives. Later on I believe a few Slytherins and few Hogsmeade residents turn up. The books make it seem as if it was a battle on a massive scale.

The difference between them and the other death eaters was that Harry personally knew that the Malfoys did not want Voldemort. If some other death eater came to Harry before Voldemort's fall, I think it is very likely that Harry would have forgiven them. Provided that they weren't responsible for a death or no-one else wanted to press charges. The Malfoys, for all their numerous schemes, were personally responsible for zero deaths or injuries.

Harry's tendency to forgive people was one of his unique characteristics and if any death eater family was going to get it, it was the Malfoys.

I see that as truly and utterly ungrateful. I see that as letting their egos get in the way of a grasp on reality, and in the way of a conscience. Regret and guilt are too much to hope for, if this is the attitude of the Malfoys after the war. The Malfoys were alive and not in Azkaban, where they surely deserved to be for their crimes. IMO, it would be a complete indication that they had learned nothing from their experiences if they were ungrateful enough to think it a disgrace. They got off lightly, at losing their social status - nobody could seriously expect society to respect such terrorists as important members of the community. IMO, it would be a sad state of affairs if the wizarding community fought against bigots and power hungry thugs like the Malfoys, fought to make a safer future, and then turned around and elevated a family of bigots back to a position of honour. If justice had been served after the first war, the Malfoys would have lost their status then, and Lucius imprisoned.

They were lucky they were free to participate in the wizarding community, they were lucky to be alive, while far better people lay in their graves. And if they did not even realise that much, I think they learned nothing whatsoever.

I think they definitely were grateful for being alive. Free to participate in wizarding community? I think not. As free as an ex-con is free, which is not much at all which is why most of them end up back in prison. I don't think Malfoy's views on muggleborns would have changed. I think they would regret their alliance with Voldemort though. Regret that they were blinded by him. Like the Blacks who didn't think much of muggleborns but didn't like what Voldemort was doing either.

As for the wizarding community having to fight against bigots, I don't think this was the last such fight. It will never be as long as the wizarding community as a whole regard muggles (and goblins and elves and ...) as beneath them and without respect. When muggles are viewed in such way, it doesn't take much to extend it to muggleborns. The interesting thing for me was that the general wizarding populace did not really care about Voldemort's ideology. A dangerous sign. The Malfoys were respected despite their views on muggleborns well known. IMO a more peaceful and charismatic leader could probably get himself elected with support. Voldemort got it wrong by being too violent but someone like Dumbledore could definitely have pulled it off.

[FurryDice]

Originally Posted by wolfbrother

He was taking a pretty big risk if he was gambling on a chance that she would write in it. Not only that she was going to write in it but also keep quiet when things started happening. As it was, she came very close to doing so. Dobby's warnings imply that Lucius was sure that the diary was going to do its job.

It's not that big a gamble - it's a notebook, specifically a diary. Odds are, a schoolgirl is going to write in it. Even if she initially intended it as a homework notebook or something else other than a diary, all it would take is some writing for Riddle to respond to.

I'm not sure if this was the intended method for the diary to work. Did Voldemort intend to write his daily activities in the diary or assume that someone else was going to do so ? I think that is a ridiculously complicated way for the diary to do its job. I expect Voldemort to have had a quicker method to have the Riddle horcrux start its job. Presumably, Voldemort intended to trigger it himself and then have the diary smuggled into Hogwarts where it could do its job.

It seems to have been. The diary enabled Riddle to possess someone - as he could not be physically present himself, the diary would need a physical body to possess. The Chamber needed to be opened with Parseltongue - meaning someone had to speak parseltongue to it. The diary had no way of doing that without a living person to use. The diary could not physically walk to the girls' bathroom and start speaking - the diary seems to have been fully intended to use someone else as a conduit.
IMO, Voldemort had no intention of writing in the diary once it was a horcrux. That was for someone else to do. I don't think it's at all complicated - the horcrux is in the form of a diary. It's triggered by someone writing in it. It seems very straightforward.

IMO the way it played out in CoS was unexpected and the Riddle horcrux having sentience rolled with it. In the end, Riddle abandoned going after muggleborns and focused on getting Harry. IMO Lucius knew nothing about the details of how the diary worked, just that as Voldemort told him, the book would open the Chamber of Secrets and cause muggleborn deaths. He thought getting it into Hogwarts was enough. If he thought that diary required some preparatory acts, he would have done so himself or asked Draco to do it.

I see no way Lucius would risk himself or Draco being possessed. And Malfoy clearly knows that the dairy involves a young Riddle - Dobby's hint to Harry proves that. Dobby later explains his hint "the Dark Lord, before he changed his name, could be freely named". Lucius knew that this would somehow involve a young Riddle.

I'm afraid I don't. The book was either easily identified or it wasn't. If it was, then, yet again Dumbledore is responsible for endangering students. If not, Lucius had to come up with some way in order to pin the blame on Ginny and the Weasleys.

I'll clarify:

Originally Posted by wolfbrother

An object filled with dark magic need not harm the person that uses it. I agree though that Ginny would have been expelled if tracked to her.

The diary wasn't anything special and wouldn't raise suspicion. Unless there was some test to check if an object had dark magic. If so, I wonder why it wasn't done by Dumbledore in the first place.

(bold mine)

Therefore, Ginny would have been expelled if the diary had been traced to her, but Lucius Malfoy couldn't possibly have traced the diary to Ginny and gotten her expelled. I see a contradiction there.
Dumbledore had no reason to check students' personal belongings. He had no reason to think that a dark magic object, and not a person was responsible. Malfoy could have come up with some pretext to check the students' belongings.

That's an awful lot of power the Minister has if he could brush aside allegations from multiple people.

Looking at what Fudge did in OotP, I can easily see that he could do that.

The other death eaters fought for Voldemort right until the end and they fled when he lost. Unlike the Malfoys who did not fight and did not flee. Remaining right at the heart of your enemy camp, especially after defeat is one of the stupidest things you can do. The Malfoys didn't care. They were done.

The Malfoys did not fight because they did not have their wands. They were unable to fight. They did not choose not to fight. And even during the battle, Draco was trying to capture Harry to bring him to Voldemort.

The difference between them and the other death eaters was that Harry personally knew that the Malfoys did not want Voldemort. If some other death eater came to Harry before Voldemort's fall, I think it is very likely that Harry would have forgiven them. Provided that they weren't responsible for a death or no-one else wanted to press charges.

I find it astonishing if no-one else wanted to press charges. Maybe the Malfoys did a good job of getting rid of witnesses. And I find it utterly implausible that Lucius was not responsible for any deaths. He didn't become an important Death Eater by quaffing fine firewhisky.

The Malfoys, for all their numerous schemes, were personally responsible for zero deaths or injuries.

Canon for that? Lucius Malfoy was a Death Eater in the first war. He was significant in Voldemort's opinion. IMO, he surely murdered people in the first war. And he was responsible for those who were petrified by the basilisk. And Draco was responsible for the injuries to Ron and Katie.

Harry's tendency to forgive people was one of his unique characteristics and if any death eater family was going to get it, it was the Malfoys.

It tells us a lot more about Harry than it does about the Malfoys.

I think they definitely were grateful for being alive. Free to participate in wizarding community? I think not. As free as an ex-con is free, which is not much at all which is why most of them end up back in prison. I don't think Malfoy's views on muggleborns would have changed. I think they would regret their alliance with Voldemort though. Regret that they were blinded by him. Like the Blacks who didn't think much of muggleborns but didn't like what Voldemort was doing either.

I think the only thing that the Malfoys would regret about allying with Voldemort is how spectacularly their bad deeds came back to bite them. I don't think they had the slightest regret morally. The only blindness they would regret is the delusion that he valued them, that they would gain power, the delusion that he considered them more than the Muggleborns they murdered. That is the only blindness I see the Malfoys regretting. I don't see Lucius regretting any of his crimes. IMO, he's only sorry he got caught, or specifically, sorry that Voldemort turned on him.

The Malfoys were free, they were not in Azkaban. They were incredibly lucky not to be in Azkaban, and I think it would be utterly ungrateful and entitled of them to whine about any other conditions placed on them, or about the so-called indignity of being pardoned by a half-blood they despised and tried to harm.

The Malfoys were respected despite their views on muggleborns well known. IMO a more peaceful and charismatic leader could probably get himself elected with support. Voldemort got it wrong by being too violent but someone like Dumbledore could definitely have pulled it off.

I don't think the Malfoys were widely respected. Fudge is the only one shown to have a high opinion of them. Oh, and Umbridge, of course. And they went down in Slughorn's opinion when he could no longer kid himself about what Lucius was.

[FlamingStar]

Lucius Malfoy is definitely not a nice guy. He has no scruples committing evil acts. He definitely should have been punished more at the end of DH than being allowed to walk away into the sunset, or in this case back to Malfoy Manor, with his family.

Sure he got a heavy dose of punishment from Voldemort, but that's a different thing altogether. He should be held accountable for what he did to the members of the Order, to Ginny, to Dobby.

Narcissa stood by passively while her husband did his evil deeds. She only helped Harry for her own personal reasons. That she's a better mother than, say, Merope (I wonder what Merope would have done in the same situation...) is no big deal as far as I can see. She may have risked incurring Voldemort's wrath, but the risk was not that great. Harry knew he had to play dead, and she knew that.

Draco is basically a bully. Most of his life he relied on his father's money and influence. He did show a remarkable ingenuity when he had to but when push came to shove, he folded. He should have been tried for attempted murder and conspiracy to commit murder - maybe with extenuating circumstances.

I understand that I should put "IMO" every time I state an opinion. May I say once and for all that everything I write is my own opinion?