[X] This is no laughing matter – You don't think you will be able to argue with either Goyle, nor the older Slytherin, but you might be able to reach an agreement with Nott. Both of you still remember the debt he owes you. If it doesn't work, pull your wand out. You do not think that you can hold yourself against three students, no matter their talent, but you'll be damned if you go down without hurting them. (High DC for talking them out of it, High DC for the ensuing fight.)
This is the one I want to go for most. Even if we fail, we can always say that "we tried." Shooting first is liable to stack even more future aggression against us, and the whole "authority figures won't do shit" argument is kind of taking a piss when you take into consideration the fact that Snape is an outlier. I sincerely doubt that Flitwick or McGonagall would take reports of bullying lying down; they would, bare minimum, cover for us, even if they couldn't stick anything more permanent on the Slytherins than a detention and docked points.
I'm pretty sure no one here is going to go for the "walk away" option because that's a dick move. So the question here is "how high is 'high,'" exactly, and how much of an advantage does shooting first give us? Even if we do get the first shot off, we don't exactly have much in the way of instant-KO spells (not counting Lapifors). I'm not even sure if we know Expelliarmus, which, by the way, we should really get on.
Thus: with the "attack first" option, we have 1 round of breathing room, after which it becomes a 1v3 for one or two rounds, assuming Finch-Fletchley gets his wand and actually backs us up instead of just running away. Even if we do land a successful Lapifors on one of them, we're still fighting a 1v2, which is not exactly winning odds, though to be fair Gregory Goyle is kind of lousy at magic. Even then, though, he's still guaranteed to know enough magic to put up a fight.
The only "tangible" benefit that talking first gives us is the moral high ground and a chance to cash in Nott's favor (though whether or not it's right to put that kind of pressure on him, considering he has to live with his own House, is up for debate).
Honestly, I don't want to put that kind of pressure on him, and I'm a little more inclined to use 2 Time Echoes (willing to us4 at most) to try and raise our combat chances. I've got an awful habit of hoarding resources in games, and now's as good a time as any to try and break it!
Back on track: moral high ground and we're basically seen in a better light for it. While it doesn't seem like much, it sounds a lot better to be the guy who tried to talk them down and lost a fight than the guy who shot first and still lost the fight (DC is still listed as high for both scenarios, remember that).
Trying to give people the chance, no matter how small, to correct their ways... it's difficult to do. Yeah. It is, but it's still what you should do. We've all got our fantasies.
But you know what? That's the defeatist attitude. We've honestly been pretty lucky with our combat dice thus far, so if we manage to hold both the moral high ground and win, that's twice the kickass points. We have a reputation, no matter how unwanted it may be, and a tool that goes unused is a sad one indeed. We can at least make them think twice about picking a fight. Being socially inept doesn't mean we can't put up a decent threat. Hell, I wouldn't even say we're that bad; we just want to be alone more often than not. It's not like we shove our foot down our throat 24/7.
Uh. Back to main topic at hand. I don't want us to shoot first because that just doesn't feel like the "generally more thoughtful, intelligent and open-minded" character we're playing as. It could be argued that intervening immediately in a clear conflict won't diminish that character, but I am always of the belief that both sides must be heard. Due process and all that jazz.
