Fine, let's get serious.

I guess you have to ask yourself what would be more right, at that point. Do you let a person who has just confessed to multiple counts of stealing people's lives from them just walk away... or do you force them to go with you into a dangerous situation.

Every second Harry and Ron piss around dealing with Lockhart, is another grain of sand from Ginny's metaphorical hourglass. If they let him go, they risk that he'll either escape and repeat his crimes (possibly seeking Harry and Ron out, later, so he can obliviate them), or immediately follow them into the Chamber to eliminate them, either by obliviation or worse.

Maybe they would have found him waiting to Obliviate them when they came back up the pipe (since Lockhart's actions caused the cave in, the way back would have been clear).

They were second years, and the only one of them who we know for certain could cast any kind of incapacitating magic at that point was the currently-petrified Hermione, who used the body bind on Neville. So, stunning or binding Lockhart wasn't an option, either. Even if they had been able to stun him, there's no guarantee the spell wouldn't have worn off before they were able to leave the Chamber, or that a well-meaning teacher or student wouldn't have found the "innocent professor" like that and unwittingly released him.

The minute he said, "Nah, dude, can't go with you because I'm, like, a total criminal. Oops, now you know, so I'm totes gonna hafta erase your minds, bra!" there was no way they could just turn their backs on him.

So, what's the more "moral" choice? I guess they could have allowed him to completely wipe their memories, leaving Ginny to die in the process, thus allowing Voldemort to return to life (so there would be TWO Voldemorts running around!) and giving Lockhart a free pass to repeat his crimes a hundred times over. Clearly you are saying that would have been the morally sound choice.

And, clearly, I think anyone who thinks that is purposely trying to be dense. :facepalm

If you want to piss and moan about how Harry's a bad person, cry about his use of Unforgivables, not how he did what he had to in order to save Ginny, stop the number of unstoppable dark lords from DOUBLING, and bring an unrepentant criminal to justice.

 

Basically everything Warlocke said. If you want to complain about things Harry has done that were irresponsible, there are things you can pick that are, you know. Actually things he has done that were irresponsible. Like the Department of Mysteries thing, for starters.

Even then, that doesn't make him a 'bad person.' Just stupid and impulsive, or, as it's more commonly known, a teenager. You can't really hold that against him. We were all there at one point or another.

 

I am definitely wasn't making a comment about Harry beyond that particular decision. I'm not sure how it came to thinking Harry was a bad person in general. In fact, I think Harry is definitely a good person and have no issues with his morals overall.

Russano's original point was "I'm always annoyed when people say Harry always does the right thing." (Emphasis mine.) I'm taking this in the context of a reader of the books, as in he did the right thing in book one when he was eleven, and so on.

I think Lord Raine (Department of Mysteries) and Warlocke (unforgiveables) in fact agree that he doesn't? Therefore, you agree with the original statement of Russano even if you disagree with his argument (concerning Lockhart).

Looking back at this particular decision: was it morally right for Harry to kidnap Lockhart and bring him into the chamber with him?

As Warlocke said, they can't just leave Lockhart after they know he is a criminal and dangerous. Also, they can't afford to waste time since Ginny is on the clock (although this is in a vague "the monster will eventually eat her" at this point).

I argued that they should go to the teachers and firstly explain the situation with the basilisk and secondly explain that Lockhart was a fraud. The second could waste a lot of time as Lockhart attempts to deny it, but the teachers wouldn't want to waste time (and probably would readily agree that Lockhart was a fraud - this can be resolved later).

So the conflict is between wasting time with the teachers (and ministry) in which Ginny could die (if she wasn't already dead), or go down in the chamber, bringing Lockhart along, and get killed by the basilisk.

I mean seriously get killed by the basilisk. You cannot even argue that there would be contest between Harry and Ron with wands, Lockhart without one and the basilisk. This renders the entire bring-Lockhart-with-you route worthless since they all die. (They didn't only because this is a story.)

Edit: To be clear I am using that "a morally right decision" is a decision which will maximise the chances of a good outcome (or the best outcome). I think in this situation we are all in agreement on what the good outcome is.

 

Harry not being good "all the time" is like arguing that it doesn't rain all the time. Obviously it doesn't. If Harry always did exactly the right thing, he would be incredibly boring, extremely shallow as a character, and also a Mary Sue. He already is kind of a Mary Sue as it is.

The Department of Mysteries is debatably him being irresponsible. Debatably. That's why I recommended it as a starting point. I personally don't think it really was, because he wasn't the one who wanted all his friends to come. They forced themselves on the affair, and wouldn't take no for an answer. Harry wanted to go alone. But the argument could be made, which makes it a far better issue to bring up than Lockheart, where Harry and Ron both did precisely the correct thing to do, and you could only be upset about the outcome if you're a Lockheart apologist or tiddle yourself to the idea of another Riddle running around.

As to the Unforgivables, that's another debatable point. Again, that makes it infinitely better than Russano's raised points, but an argument could still be made in either direction.

And again, if Harry always did the correct thing, that would be boring and rather dull.

 

I agree with you. Actually I don't see the point behind Russano's original statement since I haven't seen anyone say that Harry was always good. The distinction isn't actually important for anything either.

I disagree with you since everyone being dead is much worse than a small delay in reaching Ginny. I'm not upset with the outcome. I think that Harry and Ron had an alternative which was much better than what they took and therefore they did not do the correct thing. (Bear in mind that when they made the decision they had no idea about Riddle.)

Let's say there is a toddler on a set of train tracks and there is a train approaching rapidly. A man could either talk the toddler into coming off the train tracks or could pick the toddler up. The man chooses to talk the toddler into coming off the tracks. The toddler comes off. The outcome is wonderful and great! But the fact is that the man made the wrong decision.

 

Are you high?

 

To be fair, the story and the book would suck if Harry went to tell the teachers instead of doing the thing himself. So I'm not seeing the problem here.

 

Sorry I misconstrued this as being a Harry always takes the morale high ground argument.

My point was this; You say Harry does the right thing, and then gets rewarded for doing this. He's rewarded for making the right choice.

I say Harry does the right thing, and then gets rewarded. Harry also does the wrong thing, and gets rewarded. Which means he isnt rewarded for his good morality. But because he is the main character. Then it doesn't become about his choices at all.



Don't where the Lockheart apologist stuff comes from. I hate that guy. Everyone does. I hope he gets raped and murdered in the psych ward. I just don't pretend Harry's actions were founded in good morality. But I don't need my protagonist to always take the morale high ground.



I don't see what's wrong with Darth's anology. That is what happened if less clear cut. The analogy I thought of originally was this;

A terrorist puts a nuclear bomb under your bed. He says it will detonate sometime in the next 24 hours. You don't know how much time exactly until that happens. You have no knowledge of how to diffuse a bomb. Your two options are to go to the authorities, or diffuse it yourself. Which is morally correct?

If you decide to diffuse it yourself you find 100 wires you can cut, only 1 will diffuse it. You cut the correct one luckily, and find out the bomb would of detonated 5 minutes later, proving you would of had no time if you went for help.

The morally right decision was still to get authorities and not diffuse it yourself. You had no reasonable expectation of being able to solve the problem and got lucky. When weighted against the catastrophic loss that would of occured given that you were the ONLY one with the relevant knowledge that needed to be passed on, you were clearly incorrect from a morality standpoint. What you know at the time of the decions MATTERS. It matters alot.

Ginny should of died in the Chamber. Harry was rewarded for making the wrong decision, not the right one. That's the problem I have with your argument on choices, and doing the righ thing. He doesn't really get punished when he makes the wrong decision either.

and yeah Xandrel. Everyone agrees, Harry Potter and the Telling of the Teachers is a fucking awful awful story.

edit: and sorry, I'm not a writer. My argumentation in written form has problems.

 

Very true. That's also why there was a giant chess set guarding the Philosopher's Stone, and not a Fidelius charm.

Because fuck you, it made for good reading. It's not a goddamn conspiracy.

 

Don't you seeeeee, it was a conspiracyyyyy! Rowling was trying to create a generation of disobedient delinquents. And she succeeded. This entire economic crisis is a direct result of that. Put on your thinking hat you sheeple!

But still, no one likes a story that doesn't make sense. I had enough of that with Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. On the other hand, there is such a thing as thinking too much about a story. The books all made sense to me when I read them for the first few times.

I guess when I spend hours thinking over a decision that the protagonist had to make in a few seconds I get really annoyed that the child does the stupid thing :facepalm

I can hardly say that no author should ever have their characters make mistakes, no matter how much I might want to at times. You will lose out on a lot of possible great fiction and reality that way.