good against evil - Are any Harry Potter characters completely redeemed?

This comment by Slytherincess got me thinking a bit philosophically (hey, I’ve got six hours to kill in an airport—it happens).

There are several characters in the Harry Potter series that are fairly unilaterally portrayed as being quite vicious, malevolent, cruel, or just plain evil (*cough* Umbridge *cough*). Some of these include:

• the Dursleys


• Dudley


• Umbridge


• Snape


• Draco Malfoy


• Lucius Malfoy


• Voldemort (duh)

Some of these never change and end up every bit as evil as they began; others are, over the course of the series, portrayed in somewhat mollified ways, particularly towards the very end: Draco (discussed in the comments that sparked this question) and Dudley both end up in not-quite-evil-just-a-bit-of-a-prat territory, for example, and we all know (hopefully) how Snape’s portrayal changes.

But are there any characters who start out being portrayed as a real ‘bad guy’,¹ and end up firmly in the ‘good guys’ camp, being completely redeemed?

The only three I can think of are Snape, Sirius, and Kreacher. Of these,

• Snape is not truly redeemed—despite his actual allegiance and loyalty to Dumbledore, and despite working to save the world from Voldemort, he remains an anti-hero, a bully, and not a very nice person; he is never portrayed as an actual good person except briefly in the Pensieve flashbacks where we see him alone with Lily


• Sirius ends up being portrayed as almost a saint (through Harry’s eyes at least—not quite so much from others’ viewpoints); but he was never actually portrayed as evil to begin with. He was described secondhand as someone who everyone knew was evil; but he is never described ‘on-stage’ as being or doing anything evil (except perhaps breaking Ron’s leg), just sometimes misguided


• Kreacher is probably the best example I can think of, but being the house elf of a Dark family (with all the limitations that brings with it), he is almost exonerated of his initial wicked ways by his extreme conditioning (one might even call it brainwashing—imagine being cooped up with that horrid old painting for years and years!) to be like that²

So are there any characters whose initial portrayal paints them as thoroughly, unconditionally wicked, but whose later/final portrayal show them as thoroughly good?

---

^{1 By which I mean properly mean and evil; not just like Hermione who in the beginning is portrayed none too kindly as an annoying know-it-all. She’s never portrayed as having an actual evil bone in her body (except perhaps a little bit with Rita Skeeter).}

^{2 Only almost, though: Dobby had much the same background, but he was never conditioned and affected to the same extent.}

Answer

I'd say Regulus Black did a 180 on being evil, more so than any other character.

From JKR:

Hayleyhaha: Why did regulus have a change of heart

J.K. Rowling: He was not prepared for the reality of life as a Death Eater. It was Voldemort’s attempted murder of Kreacher that really turned him

He was one of Voldemort's inner circle, one of the closest Death Eaters. Then he became one of the people closest to actually defeating Voldemort, by gaining possession of one of the horcruxes.

As far as he knew, that was the only horcrux that Voldemort had made, and was under the assumption that Kreacher would find a way to destroy it when he told him to escape from the cave.

If Regulus had been right about these things, Voldemort would have actually been defeated the night he attacked Harry in Godric's Hollow. Regulus would have been the biggest contributor to defeating the Dark Lord, and he died believing that.

It should be added that he tried to defeat Voldemort without anyone else ever knowing what he had done, and if his plan had succeeded no one ever would have. These are the actions of a true hero. He left a message that only Voldemort would have been able to understand who it was from (Harry had no idea who R.A.B was until he happened upon the name in Grimmauld Place).

He turned from evil to good also for a noble and virtuous reason: protecting Kreacher. Voldemort's attempt to kill him (or at least leave him for dead) was the reason for Regulus' defection. An old friend (one who was treated as less than anyone else) being in danger is likely one of the most virtuous reasons to turn from evil to good.

He also protected the house-elf by drinking the potion in his stead, rather than making him go through the ordeal of drinking the poison again. He could have saved himself, but he sacrificed his life in order to save another that most others would not have thought to save, thus showing that he was good in the end.

---

Perhaps also Igor Karkaroff to an extent, another of Voldemort's inner circle, who turned in a great deal of other Death Eaters and helped to clear the streets of a lot of dark wizards.

However his actions were for less than noble reasons, as he acted more out of cowardice and selfishness than any other reason, ensuring that he got a much shorter stint in Azkaban for turning in others. However, he also did not return to Voldemort when he was resurrected, meaning he was not evil at the end.

Edit: On rereading the question, I realized the question was asking specifically about portrayal as opposed to actions. However as there is further discussion about this character in the comment's, I'll leave it in, with the footnote that his actions change from evil to good, but his character remains consistent.