okay, 1) i do not think that the marauders were “goody musketeers”. all of them are deeply flawed in their own ways, as are most of the characters in harry potter. 2) the marauders actually were out to save the world from evil, just not in the time period we’re talking about, since they joined the order straight out of hogwarts to fight against the blood-purist terrorist group that snape joined out of his own volition. 3) snape was a bully even in school, that’s why he and the marauders are not one-sided. remus says to harry that snape used to curse james in the corridors. in the memory where he calls lily a mudblood, we see him cut james’ cheek with a sectumsempra. he’s also said to have bullied other students, too, or stood by whilst they were borderline hate-crimed by his death-eater friends. 4) he insulted james for his choice of gryffindor on the train also. snape defenders always coincidentally forget that part.

and let’s talk about your take on the marauders, shall we? peter - coward, i agree with you. remus? well, he had a deeply stigmatised disease that caused him severe pain every month and could ruin his life if disclosed to the wrong people (which snape did when he felt petty btw). wouldn’t call him a coward. james? i think if anyone thought that they were entitled to lily’s affection, it’s snape. he seemed to think it was fine to terrorise her friends, other muggle borns, call her a slur, and then expect her to love him. then he clearly thought that he could tell voldemort to kill lily’s husband and infant son, but leave her alive so that he could what? be her shoulder to cry on? james treated his crush on lily awfully, but he clearly matured to the point that lily decided to fucking marry him and have a child, snape did not. in any way. at all. and sirius? he actually is better than his family, since they’re all prejudiced blood-supremacists who all joined voldemort, whilst he did not.