Thread:Jester of chaos/@comment-31330278-20190813233236/@comment-31330278-20191228222236

BOT related to topic 2: As said before, the reason Grant attacked Paul should be fixed to something more reasonable. Paul is pissing me off too, but despite the fact he lied to Grant, Grant still had no real reason to attack him. Therefore, Grant is lethal, and I want to discuss it on my upcoming PG removal proposal. My bones are aching for saying it, but the character decay Grant went through made him less noble than he used to be. The proposal isn't done yet, but here's the beginning:

Today I give you the all-time fan favorite paleontologist, the protagonist of the first and 3rd "Jurassic Park", Alan Grant.

Who is he and what has he done?
Alan Grant is a paleontologist who was hired by John Hammond to give his professional opinion about the park.

Why he doesn't qualify?
Grant is a noble man who always helped children and took responsibility, but there's one corrupting quality. The scene where he assaulted w:c:heroPaul Kirby unprovoked marks him as Lethal. I'm not defending Paul here. He did lie to Grant about the reasons to come to Isla Sorna, but PG heroes never assaulting people unless it's a last resort action. Grant had no justification to do so, and never shown remorse after doing so.

The final verdict
As a life-long JP enthusiastic, my bones are aching for saying it, but Grant should be cut. He's very close to be pure good, but his lethal moment (the category states that lethal heroes doesn't necessary kill people. They can also assault them without a really good and life threatening reason) prevent him from be considered as such.

Is it a good starting point (i'll finish it. Just want to know if it's a good structure to start from)?