An analysis of the various negative and positive traits of Snape and the Marauders. SPOILERS ABOUND!
I handed an assessment in! So I'm celebrating with this little gem that I've been working on for a while. It's kind of a more coherant update on my initial LEAVE SNAPE ALONE GUYZ! rant that I went on a while ago. Whenever I think about that, I wince so I decided to set the record straight and acknowledge that I have considered the other side since then and my opinion has changed a little as a result.
I believe that while the basic morals of a person's actions determine whether they are mostly good or bad on the complex grey scale of morality, their motivations and methods come a long way to determining just how far along that scale they are in the good or bad direction. Ultimately I believe you can do the right thing for the wrong reasons and the wrong thing for the right ones. Also, that in most situations someone who did the right thing after undergoing severe emotional and mental challenges which made the journey to that right thing harder is through virtue of being given and passing that test probably a better or at least stronger person than someone who had their journey to do the right thing easy. Especially if the second person in question would probably fail that test if they were given it. I also believe the little things count to an extent. If you judge a person on one big action that you feel can wholly define who they are you may get a different result than a more complex analysis involving more factors of their life and personality. In most situations both analyses are valid for certain purposes, but the more in depth one is ultimately more accurate to who a certain person truly is deep down. (If for example you were to pick one trait for each of Snape, James, Sirius, Lupin and Peter they would probably be deatheather, auror, auror, auror, deatheater and from that you could conclude that Snape and Peter were the same ammount of evil while James, Sirius and Lupin were all just as good heroes.) My beleifs about complex analysis and grey morality are how I can say and prove that Snape was at least as good a person as James - and James better than Sirius while Lupin was better than all of them. Obviously everyone can agree Peter is at the bottom of this morality ladder.
I have tried to stay as objective as possible in the following analysis. Because of personal issues which lead me to be very sympathetic of Snape during his school years, I personally chose to forgive him his faults and not James. I personally see James as a worse person than he probably actually was because I connect him to a real person in my life. Other people have shared stories of having teachers similar to Snape when he was a teacher which lead them to not being able to forgive him for that and I hadn't initially considered that or realised that my dislike of James sprung from personal experience and was subjective. In light of that I attempted this analysis and tried to be as objective as possible. There are, however, legitimate beliefs I hold about the nature of morality which I outlined above that still lead me to believe Snape was ultimately a good person - as good as James even - without connecting James to someone I know. Following is a points system which outlines how I came to this conclusion of the Marauder's and Snape's ultimate morality compared to each other.
[spoilspoilspoilspoil]
SEVERUS SNAPE
-He was a death eater. -4
Apart from a few exceptions, all of the morality scores are rated between -5 and +5. I figured being a death eater rated pretty near the bottom of this scale, regardless of one's reasons / circumstances. Though because of my belief that being on the good side doesn't deserve the highest moral rung on the ladder, this one also doesn't get the lowest. If there were mitigating reasons or circumstances to any trait for a particular person they were outlined in later points.
-Although I don't believe he ever bought entirely into the pureblood mentality. +1
One redeeming point for this because I believe he was just doing what was expected of him by his family and peers and perhaps also taking the side of someone who appreciated his skills because he had such long experiences with being looked down on/derided and not respected both at school and at home. So I believe that it makes him better than Lucius for example who always fully believed purebloods were better. But not much better because he still didn't make a stand against the bad guys till much later.
-He identified Harry, James, and Lily to Voldemort as possibly fitting the prophecy, signing Harry's death warrant. -4
This needed to be recognised, as it was one of the lowest single things he ever did.
-In an attempt to save Lily's life. +1
Okay, so this isn't an excuse, but it's a better reason than he thought all mudbloods should be tortured and killed so it gets him a +1 reprieve.
-He called Lily a mudblood. -2
I felt this needed to be acknowledged too but because it was just once, in the heat of a moment, and I don't think he truly believed the pureblood supremacy thing I haven't scored to too high. It's still no excuse though, so still deserves -2
-He tormented students based on their houses. -3
I am massively not a fan of bullying so this factor ended up almost as bad as being a deatheater. In the end it's my personal opinion to rate this trait so low, others may see it differently.
-As a teacher. -3
I absolutely agree that this factor makes Snape's bullying so much worse and have acknowledged so here by doubling his bully score with this additional factor.
-Partially to maintain doubt agent status. +1.5
However, I do also believe that part of his reasoning for this bullying was maintaining his double agent status (and that the rest was due to resentment towards the Marauders and Gryffindor, rather than in a general belief of pureblood superiority, although that isn't an excuse). Others disagree with me on how much this particular factor was a part of his motivations so to avoid being accused of Snape bias I have given it +1.5 which is only a quarter of the points deducted for this trait.
-He fought for the good side. +4
Because of my belief that fighting for the good guys is not the be all and end all of a person's morality I have put this action almost up the top of the morality scale, but not quite all the way.
-As a double agent. +8
As per my belief that doing the right thing despite adversity is better than doing it when it comes easily, I have given him a double boost for his years of courage and strength maintaining his double agent status for the good side.
-He followed Dumbledore's orders to the end including killing Dumbledore even though he clearly didn't want to. +2
I believe the scene where Dumbledore tells Snape he has to kill him to save Draco's soul and despite knowing that it is for the greater good and that Dumbledore is dying anyway without his or Draco's intervention he begs Dumbledore not to make him do this deserved recognition. It shows that he isn't just on the good side for selfish reasons, but that he is a good guy who truly doesn't believe the pureblood mentality and that he cares for Dumbledore and/or for Harry / the wizarding world not having the means to completely write him off as evil. (I do think he cares about this on some level after years of mistrust, hate and suspicion from almost everyone on the good side when he was really doing the right thing.) I also believe the fact that he went through with it for the greater good even though he didn't want to deserves a point so he gets a total of 2 for this bit.
-He managed to rise above the prejudiced pureblood views of his family. +3
I think it takes more strength to overcome prejudices which have been ingrained by family and society during childhood so this is why Snape and Sirius got some points for this.
-With minimal support. +2
And while Sirius was put in Gryffindor to be surrounded by people who supported the non-superiority of pure bloods view (perhaps because Sirius managed to overcome his prejudices before Snape or perhaps just because Sirius was a Gryffidor and Snape was a Slytherin and that doesn't automatically mean Hero & Evil) and also had the support of friends to overcome these prejudices I think Snape deserves a few more for going it mostly alone and having a harder time of it.
-He's dead. +2
As the Chasers say, even tossers turn into top blokes after death. In other words we tend to put on the rose tinted glasses when remembering people who have died and only see the good, resulting in any faults being forgotten and them generally being considered a great person despite actions in their life that might negate that. Except in some circumstances where they were nearly entirely perceived as bad or evil in life, and then we start forgetting their redeeming features. So in that vein I decided to give everyone dead points. And no-one can accuse me of Snape bias because they're all dead and they all got the same boost for it.
-And died fighting for the good side. +2
I also believe in terms of morality that your final decision carries more weight than past ones. So whichever side they were fighting for when they died, despite past sides, should contribute a few points on or off as well.
TOTAL: +10.5
JAMES POTTER
-He fought for the good side. +4
Because of my belief that fighting for the good guys is not the be all and end all of a person's morality I have put this action almost up the top of the morality scale, but not quite all the way
-As an Auror. +2
While James Sirius and Lupin didn't endure the stresses of double agency in their fight for the good side, they were bonified heroes - or super special agents at least. I don't know if its confirmed that they all worked as Aurors but they certainly would all have been in the OoTP so either way this is a few points to acknowledge that they performed special heroic tasks in the fight vs Voldy. But not too many because behind the scenes and supportive roles are important too.
-He always stood strong against Voldemort. +2
While I believe going through mental or emotional challenges to get to the good side shows more strength of character than always being totes good, consistency has its merits too so James Sirius and Lupin get a few points for this trait.
-He tormented students based on their houses. -3
I am massively not a fan of bullying so this factor ended up almost as bad as being a deatheater. In the end it's my personal opinion to rate this trait so low, others may see it differently.
-He never completely let go of the prejudiced views that all Slytherins were evil/untrustworthy. -1.5
No proof is given either way about this for James, but I believe since it wouldn't have been necessary for him to give up these views, it's highly unlikely that he did. On the other hand, I do not believe that the prejudice against Slytherin is as bad a pureblood mentality and prejudice against muggles/non-purebloods so only 1.5 points down for this one. If there was a character in this analysis (say Lucius or Belatrix) who never gave up their pureblood views then they would have gotten -3.
-He's dead. +2
As the Chasers say, even tossers turn into top blokes after death. In other words we tend to put on the rose tinted glasses when remembering people who have died and only see the good, resulting in any faults being forgotten and them generally being considered a great person despite actions in their life that might negate that. Except in some circumstances where they were nearly entirely perceived as bad or evil in life, and then we start forgetting their redeeming features. So in that vein I decided to give everyone dead points.
-And died fighting for the good side. +2
I also believe in terms of morality that your final decision carries more weight than past ones. So whichever side they were fighting for when they died, despite past sides, should contribute a few points on or off as well.
-Through sacrificing himself to save his wife and son. +2
This was an immensely brave and selfless act so he gets 2 points for it. Not more because when you really think about it, it's obvious. I mean you'd never expect him not to of done that. He loved them. If he'd jumped in front of a killing curse for a random innocent bystander that'd get him more points.
TOTAL: +9.5
SIRIUS BLACK
-He fought for the good side. +4
Because of my belief that fighting for the good guys is not the be all and end all of a person's morality I have put this action almost up the top of the morality scale, but not quite all the way
-As an Auror. +2
While James Sirius and Lupin didn't endure the stresses of double agency in their fight for the good side, they were bonified heroes - or super special agents at least. I don't know if its confirmed that they all worked as Aurors but they certainly would all have been in the OoTP so either way this is a few points to acknowledge that they performed special heroic tasks in the fight vs Voldy. But not too many because behind the scenes and supportive roles are important too.
-He always stood strong against Voldemort. +2
While I believe going through mental or emotional challenges to get to the good side shows more strength of character than always being totes good, consistency has its merits too so James Sirius and Lupin get a few points for this trait.
-He tormented students based on their houses. -3
I am massively not a fan of bullying so this factor ended up almost as bad as being a deatheater. In the end it's my personal opinion to rate this trait so low, others may see it differently.
-To an extreme. -2
I think it's made clear that the prank which almost got Snape killed was Sirius' idea. Plus he always seemed more vicious and extreme in his hatred and derision of Snape and Slytherins. I think this was a reaction to his upbringing but the levels he took it too were still inexcusable. So 2 less points for you.
-He managed to rise above the prejudiced pureblood views of his family. +3
I think it takes more strength to overcome prejudices which have been ingrained by family and society during childhood so this is why Snape and Sirius got some points for this.
-He never completely let go of the prejudiced views that all Slytherins were evil/untrustworthy. -1.5
No proof is given either way about this for James, but I believe since it wouldn't have been necessary for him to give up these views, it's highly unlikely that he did. I do think it was clear that Sirius never matured past this viewpoint though. On the other hand, I do not believe that the prejudice against Slytherin is as bad a pureblood mentality and prejudice against muggles/non-purebloods so only 1.5 points down for this one. If there was a character in this analysis (say Lucius or Belatrix) who never gave up their pureblood views then they would have gotten -3.
-He was family to Harry and there to love and support him for a short time. +1
Okay, this is a minor point to me for a few reasons. 1. I think he wasn't the best god dad because at points he was a bad influence on Harry by encouraging Harry's anger/hatred a little like when he wanted to kill Peter but Harry insisted they take him in alive and stuff. It's obvious Harry's a better person than him anyway. 2. Also, I just think it was obvious, and circumstantial. He was Harry's godfather and for a short time he happened to be in Harry's life and he cared for Harry and Harry really needed a family and someone who loved him so that was a good thing, but didn't require much direct action from Sirius. The Weaslys were a better family to Harry because they never had to be but they always were. Also, to me, not being a good parent or god parent is a serious negative moral trait, but being a good one is just neutral because it's kind of basic? It's the minimum that's expected of someone. If you're a really good parent, that's when you start earning serious good moral points.
-He's dead. +2
As the Chasers say, even tossers turn into top blokes after death. In other words we tend to put on the rose tinted glasses when remembering people who have died and only see the good, resulting in any faults being forgotten and them generally being considered a great person despite actions in their life that might negate that. Except in some circumstances where they were nearly entirely perceived as bad or evil in life, and then we start forgetting their redeeming features. So in that vein I decided to give everyone dead points.
-And died fighting for the good side. +2
I also believe in terms of morality that your final decision carries more weight than past ones. So whichever side they were fighting for when they died, despite past sides, should contribute a few points on or off as well.
TOTAL: +9.5
REMUS LUPIN:
-He fought for the good side. +4
Because of my belief that fighting for the good guys is not the be all and end all of a person's morality I have put this action almost up the top of the morality scale, but not quite all the way
-As an Auror. +2
While James Sirius and Lupin didn't endure the stresses of double agency in their fight for the good side, they were bonified heroes - or super special agents at least. I don't know if its confirmed that they all worked as Aurors but they certainly would all have been in the OoTP so either way this is a few points to acknowledge that they performed special heroic tasks in the fight vs Voldy. But not too many because behind the scenes and supportive roles are important too.
-He always stood strong against Voldemort. +2
While I believe going through mental or emotional challenges to get to the good side shows more strength of character than always being totes good, consistency has its merits too so James Sirius and Lupin get a few points for this trait.
-He stood by while his friends tormented students based on their houses. -2
I think it is pretty clear that Lupin and Peter wasn't as active bullies as the others in school. But they never tried to stop them in general either and that's almost as bad. But not the same so they get -2 for that.
-But seemed genuinely remorseful about this. +1
On the other hand he seemed genuinely remorseful as an adult for what the Marauders did in terms of bullying and while that doesn't erase the past it goes a long way towards making up for it so he gets a +1 for that.
-He was a good, kind, supportive teacher. +2
Like he really, really was. More than just a regular not-bad teacher, and that deserves recognition.
-He was supportive, loving and kind to Harry. +2
When he didn't entirely have to be (he was friends with Harry's parents but Harry didn't know that and he wasn't officially Harry's godfather) so he gets a little bit more than Sirius for this. Also, he gets more because I think he was a better influence on Harry and more supportive and loving even if it was just through the virtue of a kinder, gentler personality, less angsty issues getting in his way, and more time with Harry (while Lupin had his own angst to deal with, I think in Sirius' stint in Azkaban as well as his commitment to revenge because he knew the real traitor was still free were more angsty than being a Werewolf).
-He's dead. +2
As the Chasers say, even tossers turn into top blokes after death. In other words we tend to put on the rose tinted glasses when remembering people who have died and only see the good, resulting in any faults being forgotten and them generally being considered a great person despite actions in their life that might negate that. Except in some circumstances where they were nearly entirely perceived as bad or evil in life, and then we start forgetting their redeeming features. So in that vein I decided to give everyone dead points.
-And died fighting for the good side. +2
I also believe in terms of morality that your final decision carries more weight than past ones. So whichever side they were fighting for when they died, despite past sides, should contribute a few points on or off as well.
TOTAL: +15
PETER PETEGREW:
-He was a death eater. -4
Apart from a few exceptions, all of the morality scores are rated between -5 and +5. I figured being a death eater rated pretty near the bottom of this scale, regardless of one's reasons / circumstances. Though because of my belief that being on the good side doesn't deserve the highest moral rung on the ladder, this one also doesn't get the lowest. If there were mitigating reasons or circumstances to any trait for a particular person they were outlined in later points.
-Although I don't believe he ever bought entirely into the pureblood mentality. +1
One redeeming point for this because I believe he was just a major coward which makes him a little better than an actual bigot but not much. Also, it wouldn't be fair to give the point to Snape and not acknowledge that it was also true for Peter so far as I know.
-He stood by while his friends tormented students based on their houses. -2
I think it is pretty clear that Lupin and Peter wasn't as active bullies as the others in school. But they never tried to stop them in general either and that's almost as bad. But not the same so they get -2 for that.
-He gave up Lily James and Harry to Voldemort. -4
-Not through spur of the moment because of torture, but as a pre-determined plot. That was bad.
-And they were his friends. -2
Even worse. But not too much worse because it's a bad thing to do no matter how well you know the people.
-He returned Voldemort to power. -5
I don't think I need to go on much about Peter's stuff because it's all fairly obvious.
-He served faithfully at Voldemorts side without remorse or hesitation. -5
I might have felt more sorry for him if he was once depicted at looking remorseful or hesitant to do the bad things he had to do in Voldemort's service, for a reason other than fear of punishment.
-Out of cowardice. +3
More points for cowardice because it was the major factor in everything bad he does, which is better than being a bigot but as I said not by that much.
TOTAL: -18
FINAL TALLY:
LUPIN +15
SNAPE +10.5
JAMES +9.5
SIRIUS +9.5
PETER -18
Oh, and a final note: These scores are entirely concerned with the characters ultimate MORALITY on a scale which in my mind stretches out infinitely in both directions from the neutral point of 0. IT IS NOT A SCORE FOR HOW COOL/LIKEABLE/HOT/RELATEABLE/WHATEVER the characters are. If you like Sirius, or James, or even Peter better than the other characters on this list for whatever reason that's cool but it's not what this list was about. I mean, I like Snape way more than James - far more than 1 point worth. That's my personal opinion though, while I tried to make this analysis objective. Plus it's based on more than morality. Having said that if you have any suggestions for alterations regarding the character's morality based on events in the series I have forgotten or neglected or your own interpretation of certain events and characters I would love to hear them and may make alterations to the scores based on them. Also, if anyone knows whether or not Peter died and if he did, how he died that would be helpful.
I believe that while the basic morals of a person's actions determine whether they are mostly good or bad on the complex grey scale of morality, their motivations and methods come a long way to determining just how far along that scale they are in the good or bad direction. Ultimately I believe you can do the right thing for the wrong reasons and the wrong thing for the right ones. Also, that in most situations someone who did the right thing after undergoing severe emotional and mental challenges which made the journey to that right thing harder is through virtue of being given and passing that test probably a better or at least stronger person than someone who had their journey to do the right thing easy. Especially if the second person in question would probably fail that test if they were given it. I also believe the little things count to an extent. If you judge a person on one big action that you feel can wholly define who they are you may get a different result than a more complex analysis involving more factors of their life and personality. In most situations both analyses are valid for certain purposes, but the more in depth one is ultimately more accurate to who a certain person truly is deep down. (If for example you were to pick one trait for each of Snape, James, Sirius, Lupin and Peter they would probably be deatheather, auror, auror, auror, deatheater and from that you could conclude that Snape and Peter were the same ammount of evil while James, Sirius and Lupin were all just as good heroes.) My beleifs about complex analysis and grey morality are how I can say and prove that Snape was at least as good a person as James - and James better than Sirius while Lupin was better than all of them. Obviously everyone can agree Peter is at the bottom of this morality ladder.
I have tried to stay as objective as possible in the following analysis. Because of personal issues which lead me to be very sympathetic of Snape during his school years, I personally chose to forgive him his faults and not James. I personally see James as a worse person than he probably actually was because I connect him to a real person in my life. Other people have shared stories of having teachers similar to Snape when he was a teacher which lead them to not being able to forgive him for that and I hadn't initially considered that or realised that my dislike of James sprung from personal experience and was subjective. In light of that I attempted this analysis and tried to be as objective as possible. There are, however, legitimate beliefs I hold about the nature of morality which I outlined above that still lead me to believe Snape was ultimately a good person - as good as James even - without connecting James to someone I know. Following is a points system which outlines how I came to this conclusion of the Marauder's and Snape's ultimate morality compared to each other.
[spoilspoilspoilspoil]
SEVERUS SNAPE
-He was a death eater. -4
Apart from a few exceptions, all of the morality scores are rated between -5 and +5. I figured being a death eater rated pretty near the bottom of this scale, regardless of one's reasons / circumstances. Though because of my belief that being on the good side doesn't deserve the highest moral rung on the ladder, this one also doesn't get the lowest. If there were mitigating reasons or circumstances to any trait for a particular person they were outlined in later points.
-Although I don't believe he ever bought entirely into the pureblood mentality. +1
One redeeming point for this because I believe he was just doing what was expected of him by his family and peers and perhaps also taking the side of someone who appreciated his skills because he had such long experiences with being looked down on/derided and not respected both at school and at home. So I believe that it makes him better than Lucius for example who always fully believed purebloods were better. But not much better because he still didn't make a stand against the bad guys till much later.
-He identified Harry, James, and Lily to Voldemort as possibly fitting the prophecy, signing Harry's death warrant. -4
This needed to be recognised, as it was one of the lowest single things he ever did.
-In an attempt to save Lily's life. +1
Okay, so this isn't an excuse, but it's a better reason than he thought all mudbloods should be tortured and killed so it gets him a +1 reprieve.
-He called Lily a mudblood. -2
I felt this needed to be acknowledged too but because it was just once, in the heat of a moment, and I don't think he truly believed the pureblood supremacy thing I haven't scored to too high. It's still no excuse though, so still deserves -2
-He tormented students based on their houses. -3
I am massively not a fan of bullying so this factor ended up almost as bad as being a deatheater. In the end it's my personal opinion to rate this trait so low, others may see it differently.
-As a teacher. -3
I absolutely agree that this factor makes Snape's bullying so much worse and have acknowledged so here by doubling his bully score with this additional factor.
-Partially to maintain doubt agent status. +1.5
However, I do also believe that part of his reasoning for this bullying was maintaining his double agent status (and that the rest was due to resentment towards the Marauders and Gryffindor, rather than in a general belief of pureblood superiority, although that isn't an excuse). Others disagree with me on how much this particular factor was a part of his motivations so to avoid being accused of Snape bias I have given it +1.5 which is only a quarter of the points deducted for this trait.
-He fought for the good side. +4
Because of my belief that fighting for the good guys is not the be all and end all of a person's morality I have put this action almost up the top of the morality scale, but not quite all the way.
-As a double agent. +8
As per my belief that doing the right thing despite adversity is better than doing it when it comes easily, I have given him a double boost for his years of courage and strength maintaining his double agent status for the good side.
-He followed Dumbledore's orders to the end including killing Dumbledore even though he clearly didn't want to. +2
I believe the scene where Dumbledore tells Snape he has to kill him to save Draco's soul and despite knowing that it is for the greater good and that Dumbledore is dying anyway without his or Draco's intervention he begs Dumbledore not to make him do this deserved recognition. It shows that he isn't just on the good side for selfish reasons, but that he is a good guy who truly doesn't believe the pureblood mentality and that he cares for Dumbledore and/or for Harry / the wizarding world not having the means to completely write him off as evil. (I do think he cares about this on some level after years of mistrust, hate and suspicion from almost everyone on the good side when he was really doing the right thing.) I also believe the fact that he went through with it for the greater good even though he didn't want to deserves a point so he gets a total of 2 for this bit.
-He managed to rise above the prejudiced pureblood views of his family. +3
I think it takes more strength to overcome prejudices which have been ingrained by family and society during childhood so this is why Snape and Sirius got some points for this.
-With minimal support. +2
And while Sirius was put in Gryffindor to be surrounded by people who supported the non-superiority of pure bloods view (perhaps because Sirius managed to overcome his prejudices before Snape or perhaps just because Sirius was a Gryffidor and Snape was a Slytherin and that doesn't automatically mean Hero & Evil) and also had the support of friends to overcome these prejudices I think Snape deserves a few more for going it mostly alone and having a harder time of it.
-He's dead. +2
As the Chasers say, even tossers turn into top blokes after death. In other words we tend to put on the rose tinted glasses when remembering people who have died and only see the good, resulting in any faults being forgotten and them generally being considered a great person despite actions in their life that might negate that. Except in some circumstances where they were nearly entirely perceived as bad or evil in life, and then we start forgetting their redeeming features. So in that vein I decided to give everyone dead points. And no-one can accuse me of Snape bias because they're all dead and they all got the same boost for it.
-And died fighting for the good side. +2
I also believe in terms of morality that your final decision carries more weight than past ones. So whichever side they were fighting for when they died, despite past sides, should contribute a few points on or off as well.
TOTAL: +10.5
JAMES POTTER
-He fought for the good side. +4
Because of my belief that fighting for the good guys is not the be all and end all of a person's morality I have put this action almost up the top of the morality scale, but not quite all the way
-As an Auror. +2
While James Sirius and Lupin didn't endure the stresses of double agency in their fight for the good side, they were bonified heroes - or super special agents at least. I don't know if its confirmed that they all worked as Aurors but they certainly would all have been in the OoTP so either way this is a few points to acknowledge that they performed special heroic tasks in the fight vs Voldy. But not too many because behind the scenes and supportive roles are important too.
-He always stood strong against Voldemort. +2
While I believe going through mental or emotional challenges to get to the good side shows more strength of character than always being totes good, consistency has its merits too so James Sirius and Lupin get a few points for this trait.
-He tormented students based on their houses. -3
I am massively not a fan of bullying so this factor ended up almost as bad as being a deatheater. In the end it's my personal opinion to rate this trait so low, others may see it differently.
-He never completely let go of the prejudiced views that all Slytherins were evil/untrustworthy. -1.5
No proof is given either way about this for James, but I believe since it wouldn't have been necessary for him to give up these views, it's highly unlikely that he did. On the other hand, I do not believe that the prejudice against Slytherin is as bad a pureblood mentality and prejudice against muggles/non-purebloods so only 1.5 points down for this one. If there was a character in this analysis (say Lucius or Belatrix) who never gave up their pureblood views then they would have gotten -3.
-He's dead. +2
As the Chasers say, even tossers turn into top blokes after death. In other words we tend to put on the rose tinted glasses when remembering people who have died and only see the good, resulting in any faults being forgotten and them generally being considered a great person despite actions in their life that might negate that. Except in some circumstances where they were nearly entirely perceived as bad or evil in life, and then we start forgetting their redeeming features. So in that vein I decided to give everyone dead points.
-And died fighting for the good side. +2
I also believe in terms of morality that your final decision carries more weight than past ones. So whichever side they were fighting for when they died, despite past sides, should contribute a few points on or off as well.
-Through sacrificing himself to save his wife and son. +2
This was an immensely brave and selfless act so he gets 2 points for it. Not more because when you really think about it, it's obvious. I mean you'd never expect him not to of done that. He loved them. If he'd jumped in front of a killing curse for a random innocent bystander that'd get him more points.
TOTAL: +9.5
SIRIUS BLACK
-He fought for the good side. +4
Because of my belief that fighting for the good guys is not the be all and end all of a person's morality I have put this action almost up the top of the morality scale, but not quite all the way
-As an Auror. +2
While James Sirius and Lupin didn't endure the stresses of double agency in their fight for the good side, they were bonified heroes - or super special agents at least. I don't know if its confirmed that they all worked as Aurors but they certainly would all have been in the OoTP so either way this is a few points to acknowledge that they performed special heroic tasks in the fight vs Voldy. But not too many because behind the scenes and supportive roles are important too.
-He always stood strong against Voldemort. +2
While I believe going through mental or emotional challenges to get to the good side shows more strength of character than always being totes good, consistency has its merits too so James Sirius and Lupin get a few points for this trait.
-He tormented students based on their houses. -3
I am massively not a fan of bullying so this factor ended up almost as bad as being a deatheater. In the end it's my personal opinion to rate this trait so low, others may see it differently.
-To an extreme. -2
I think it's made clear that the prank which almost got Snape killed was Sirius' idea. Plus he always seemed more vicious and extreme in his hatred and derision of Snape and Slytherins. I think this was a reaction to his upbringing but the levels he took it too were still inexcusable. So 2 less points for you.
-He managed to rise above the prejudiced pureblood views of his family. +3
I think it takes more strength to overcome prejudices which have been ingrained by family and society during childhood so this is why Snape and Sirius got some points for this.
-He never completely let go of the prejudiced views that all Slytherins were evil/untrustworthy. -1.5
No proof is given either way about this for James, but I believe since it wouldn't have been necessary for him to give up these views, it's highly unlikely that he did. I do think it was clear that Sirius never matured past this viewpoint though. On the other hand, I do not believe that the prejudice against Slytherin is as bad a pureblood mentality and prejudice against muggles/non-purebloods so only 1.5 points down for this one. If there was a character in this analysis (say Lucius or Belatrix) who never gave up their pureblood views then they would have gotten -3.
-He was family to Harry and there to love and support him for a short time. +1
Okay, this is a minor point to me for a few reasons. 1. I think he wasn't the best god dad because at points he was a bad influence on Harry by encouraging Harry's anger/hatred a little like when he wanted to kill Peter but Harry insisted they take him in alive and stuff. It's obvious Harry's a better person than him anyway. 2. Also, I just think it was obvious, and circumstantial. He was Harry's godfather and for a short time he happened to be in Harry's life and he cared for Harry and Harry really needed a family and someone who loved him so that was a good thing, but didn't require much direct action from Sirius. The Weaslys were a better family to Harry because they never had to be but they always were. Also, to me, not being a good parent or god parent is a serious negative moral trait, but being a good one is just neutral because it's kind of basic? It's the minimum that's expected of someone. If you're a really good parent, that's when you start earning serious good moral points.
-He's dead. +2
As the Chasers say, even tossers turn into top blokes after death. In other words we tend to put on the rose tinted glasses when remembering people who have died and only see the good, resulting in any faults being forgotten and them generally being considered a great person despite actions in their life that might negate that. Except in some circumstances where they were nearly entirely perceived as bad or evil in life, and then we start forgetting their redeeming features. So in that vein I decided to give everyone dead points.
-And died fighting for the good side. +2
I also believe in terms of morality that your final decision carries more weight than past ones. So whichever side they were fighting for when they died, despite past sides, should contribute a few points on or off as well.
TOTAL: +9.5
REMUS LUPIN:
-He fought for the good side. +4
Because of my belief that fighting for the good guys is not the be all and end all of a person's morality I have put this action almost up the top of the morality scale, but not quite all the way
-As an Auror. +2
While James Sirius and Lupin didn't endure the stresses of double agency in their fight for the good side, they were bonified heroes - or super special agents at least. I don't know if its confirmed that they all worked as Aurors but they certainly would all have been in the OoTP so either way this is a few points to acknowledge that they performed special heroic tasks in the fight vs Voldy. But not too many because behind the scenes and supportive roles are important too.
-He always stood strong against Voldemort. +2
While I believe going through mental or emotional challenges to get to the good side shows more strength of character than always being totes good, consistency has its merits too so James Sirius and Lupin get a few points for this trait.
-He stood by while his friends tormented students based on their houses. -2
I think it is pretty clear that Lupin and Peter wasn't as active bullies as the others in school. But they never tried to stop them in general either and that's almost as bad. But not the same so they get -2 for that.
-But seemed genuinely remorseful about this. +1
On the other hand he seemed genuinely remorseful as an adult for what the Marauders did in terms of bullying and while that doesn't erase the past it goes a long way towards making up for it so he gets a +1 for that.
-He was a good, kind, supportive teacher. +2
Like he really, really was. More than just a regular not-bad teacher, and that deserves recognition.
-He was supportive, loving and kind to Harry. +2
When he didn't entirely have to be (he was friends with Harry's parents but Harry didn't know that and he wasn't officially Harry's godfather) so he gets a little bit more than Sirius for this. Also, he gets more because I think he was a better influence on Harry and more supportive and loving even if it was just through the virtue of a kinder, gentler personality, less angsty issues getting in his way, and more time with Harry (while Lupin had his own angst to deal with, I think in Sirius' stint in Azkaban as well as his commitment to revenge because he knew the real traitor was still free were more angsty than being a Werewolf).
-He's dead. +2
As the Chasers say, even tossers turn into top blokes after death. In other words we tend to put on the rose tinted glasses when remembering people who have died and only see the good, resulting in any faults being forgotten and them generally being considered a great person despite actions in their life that might negate that. Except in some circumstances where they were nearly entirely perceived as bad or evil in life, and then we start forgetting their redeeming features. So in that vein I decided to give everyone dead points.
-And died fighting for the good side. +2
I also believe in terms of morality that your final decision carries more weight than past ones. So whichever side they were fighting for when they died, despite past sides, should contribute a few points on or off as well.
TOTAL: +15
PETER PETEGREW:
-He was a death eater. -4
Apart from a few exceptions, all of the morality scores are rated between -5 and +5. I figured being a death eater rated pretty near the bottom of this scale, regardless of one's reasons / circumstances. Though because of my belief that being on the good side doesn't deserve the highest moral rung on the ladder, this one also doesn't get the lowest. If there were mitigating reasons or circumstances to any trait for a particular person they were outlined in later points.
-Although I don't believe he ever bought entirely into the pureblood mentality. +1
One redeeming point for this because I believe he was just a major coward which makes him a little better than an actual bigot but not much. Also, it wouldn't be fair to give the point to Snape and not acknowledge that it was also true for Peter so far as I know.
-He stood by while his friends tormented students based on their houses. -2
I think it is pretty clear that Lupin and Peter wasn't as active bullies as the others in school. But they never tried to stop them in general either and that's almost as bad. But not the same so they get -2 for that.
-He gave up Lily James and Harry to Voldemort. -4
-Not through spur of the moment because of torture, but as a pre-determined plot. That was bad.
-And they were his friends. -2
Even worse. But not too much worse because it's a bad thing to do no matter how well you know the people.
-He returned Voldemort to power. -5
I don't think I need to go on much about Peter's stuff because it's all fairly obvious.
-He served faithfully at Voldemorts side without remorse or hesitation. -5
I might have felt more sorry for him if he was once depicted at looking remorseful or hesitant to do the bad things he had to do in Voldemort's service, for a reason other than fear of punishment.
-Out of cowardice. +3
More points for cowardice because it was the major factor in everything bad he does, which is better than being a bigot but as I said not by that much.
TOTAL: -18
FINAL TALLY:
LUPIN +15
SNAPE +10.5
JAMES +9.5
SIRIUS +9.5
PETER -18
Oh, and a final note: These scores are entirely concerned with the characters ultimate MORALITY on a scale which in my mind stretches out infinitely in both directions from the neutral point of 0. IT IS NOT A SCORE FOR HOW COOL/LIKEABLE/HOT/RELATEABLE/WHATEVER the characters are. If you like Sirius, or James, or even Peter better than the other characters on this list for whatever reason that's cool but it's not what this list was about. I mean, I like Snape way more than James - far more than 1 point worth. That's my personal opinion though, while I tried to make this analysis objective. Plus it's based on more than morality. Having said that if you have any suggestions for alterations regarding the character's morality based on events in the series I have forgotten or neglected or your own interpretation of certain events and characters I would love to hear them and may make alterations to the scores based on them. Also, if anyone knows whether or not Peter died and if he did, how he died that would be helpful.