Is Krogstad's decision not to expose Nora's secret convincing in A Doll’s House?
This is a great question because I, as a teacher, have trouble explaining to my students that perhaps Ibsen did want to demonstrate that "love changes everything".
However, it is stylistically acceptable to argue that, in terms of motivation, it does seem a weak movement on his part. Basically you ask yourself: Does this mean that all he needed was a woman to quit bothering Nora? Doesn't this open another can of worms?
So, to me, he was never convincing in any way, and I would think a hundred times about trusting his "kindness". He is a force not to be reckoned with, and a traitor in his own right.