But that list includes children dying, according to Draco. 'On his watch.' Which I guess means while he feels responsible. Interesting. Especially if he's gonna be Headmaster.
I'd ask the older members of the Order who might remember: Mum, Dad, Kingsley, Sirius...are there any reports, back when The Lord Protector was first on the rise, of Dolohov being directly responsible for the deaths of children? Because maybe that's an ethical line he won't cross.
Which might mean if we ever get up to something really dangerous at the school, if there's a chance that we could be caught, it might be best to use the youngest among us.
Is that why he let some of us go at the Ministry, last year?
Remember that Grim Truth Sirius told when Dolohov first came the Hogwarts, about Rachel Brodie when she was just a little girl? He didn't kill her then. Maybe that was why.
It also might mean you'll have to REALLY watch out that you don't get caught snooping around his office. You're of age now, and that might mean that if he does catch you, he isn't gonna keep his wand holstered.
I've got good reasons to touch almost anything in his office. There's almost nothing I could do to his office that would be suspicious. That may change in the Headmaster's office. We'll see. If I fumble the quaffle and make him think I intend him harm, I'll be dead whenever he wants. He'll just surprise me and it'll be all over. but the torture and the dying It's only fair. That's my plan for him, whenever Aliceyour m the Order says I'll step behind him and well thing will end. One way or another.
He knows my first loyalty flies with Harry, unless and until he suspects Harry of more than wanting to reform the Protectorate and protecting people anything suspicious that I'd do will fall under 'helping Harry'. If he believes Harry is a traitor our goose's well and thoroughly cooked.
The more I work with him the weirder Slytherin thinking gets. Everything has two, three or more motives. It's all pieces moving about on a crazy multidimensional chess board where every move makes half a dozen different things happen. My goals are so simple and he over complicates it.
I don't have any memory of any report that Dolohov was responsible for the death of children. And as grim as some of the field notes are about his actions, that's saying something. In fact I'd say he has gone out of his way to avoid it.
no subject
I'd ask the older members of the Order who might remember: Mum, Dad, Kingsley, Sirius...are there any reports, back when The Lord Protector was first on the rise, of Dolohov being directly responsible for the deaths of children? Because maybe that's an ethical line he won't cross.
Which might mean if we ever get up to something really dangerous at the school, if there's a chance that we could be caught, it might be best to use the youngest among us.
Is that why he let some of us go at the Ministry, last year?
Private message to Cedric Diggory
It also might mean you'll have to REALLY watch out that you don't get caught snooping around his office. You're of age now, and that might mean that if he does catch you, he isn't gonna keep his wand holstered.
Re: Private message to Cedric Diggory
but the torture and the dyingIt's only fair. That's my plan for him, wheneverAliceyour mthe Order says I'll step behind him and well thing will end. One way or another.He knows my first loyalty flies with Harry, unless and until he suspects Harry of more than wanting to reform the Protectorate and protecting people anything suspicious that I'd do will fall under 'helping Harry'. If he believes Harry is a traitor our goose's well and thoroughly cooked.
The more I work with him the weirder Slytherin thinking gets. Everything has two, three or more motives. It's all pieces moving about on a crazy multidimensional chess board where every move makes half a dozen different things happen. My goals are so simple and he over complicates it.
no subject
no subject
And I think you're right, he doesn't like hurting little kids. Which is not to say that he WOULDN'T if he thought he had to, he'd just rather not.
no subject