Thread:LucidPigeons/@comment-27729149-20150425083602/@comment-27729149-20150823174753

AWildKittyAppeared wrote: Unforgivable, really? After she spent thousands of years protecting Earth, and then raising and nurturing Steven, despite the fact that his existence was contingent on the death of her lover, and et cetera? And from that one act, unforgivable? Alright, alright. I'm a very lenient kitty cat, I'll admit it. But don't you think there's something she could do to be redeemed for just being a big ol' time wasting, friend using liar? Given her history of good behavior? And Lapis did save them all from Jasper, and moreso, sacriced her own freedom permanently in order to keep Jasper from hurting the Gems, Steven, or Earth. I thought that you yourself were saying at the beginning of this thread that crossing a moral event horizon shouldn't disqualify from redemption. I personally agree with that sentiment, so why the change? Well the reason for the change is because I've noticed Pearl becoming more negative and selfish as the series progressed. As for lapis she's really only doing it for Steven, but even then it doesn't exactly make up for trying to drown him, breaking his dad's leg, trying to kill the gems, selling them out to homeworld, etc. The reason I started the thread was out of curiosity, but as time went on and I saw all these moral event horizon crossers, I've started to notice why people call them monsters. Trevor Phillips, shion sonozaki, loghain Mac tur, Peter griffin, Rena ryuguu, kaede from Ellen lied, darth vader and many more are some of the most irredeemable monsters I've ever seen, and no I don't care that they sacrificed their life to save one guy, when they murdered thousands of innocent people. Honestly you don't know how happy I was to see them die for their crimes, they deserved death.