Talk:Hogwarts AU/@comment-213.162.68.73-20140316103334/@comment-16059609-20140717233749

I'm not entirely sure of the definition of True Gryffindor. Bravery is a rather obscure virtue: there are so any things that can result in bravery; loyalty, duty, selflessness. I must admit that I'm guilty  of using Gryffindor as a defult house; if a character is not curious/clever enough to be in Ravenclaw, ambitious/cunning enough to be in Slytherin, or loyal/selfless enough to be in Hufflepuff, I put them in Gryffindor. I've begun to think less of Gryffindors, and I must apologize. I've spent so much time arguing why someone shouldn't be in Gryffindor that I've never thought about what makes someone a Gryffindor. And I can only guess. The rest of this post is all speculation that I kid you not I came up with sitting here, at home, on my couch, watching Doctor Who. So if you think it's hogwash then that's why. You're very welcome.

A Gryffindor is, I suppose, a character confident enough to take matters into their own hands and lead, not for leading's sake as a Slytherin would, but in times of necessity and when they are needed. A Gryffindor is there when they are needed, to stand up for others, to be brave and do what is needed when others can't.

The definition of belonging in a House isn't in how they act when they're roughhousing in the common room, it's determined by how they are in times of necessity, in a crisis. Yeah a Gryffindor is more likely to be pranking his fellows, laughing uproariously, daring to do dangerous things for the sake of doing dangerous things, but when real danger comes along they know it, and they rise to meet it. They know their limits and they test them. That is a Gryffindor.

I will revise the term have to in the phrase, "If they didn't have to be brave, would they still?" There's always a choice, whether or not to be brave. Gryffindors don't stand alone, they don't have to be brave, they could let someone else take their place. But they don't.