By keeping a clear distinction between Plato the author and Socrates the character, and between Socrates the character and the personified Laws of Athens whose arguments he uses (to problematise those of Crito), I defend a reading of the Crito that opens but does not close a dilemma, a tragic conflict of loyalties, to which Plato offers no simple solution. Obligations to different friends or sets of friends can conflict, and one’s concern for the interests or feelings of a friend can and should count as a reason in favour of a particular course of action, albeit not always an overrriding one. Allegiance to one’s country should not be unconditional, even if it has offered the best freedoms available. Since Socrates badly misunderstands the good motivations behind Crito’s proposals, and fails to address (or even notice) the points that Crito makes that are based on altruism, Socrates is portrayed as focused solely on his own interests, and incapable of considering that his decision to die might be not just noble and right, but also, at the same time, damaging or wrong.