Weren't you claiming that you "don't want to debate", while distorting what I said? Did you change your mind?
But let's bite it. We're talking about characters in a work of fiction; but yourself was the one bringing up "in a realistic context". Well, in a realistic context you do not have access to the thoughts of someone else, and yet you're defending a character based on their... "intentions".
Yeah, but apparently I'm the one disconnected from reality. And the Moon is made of green cheese, right.
It's easy to ignore the fact that she was considering to kill Spinach, to the point that she voiced it to the MC, right? Because it contradicts what you want to believe.
Because a person killed by accident is less dead than one killed by sadism, right?
Oh wait, Kate is not a murderer. Unlike Isabelle
The difference that you see is in Hell's pavement. It's intentions - something that not even Isabelle herself cares about (for different reasons that I don't), as shown by when she slaps Lindsey.
People should be not judged by "intenshuns", but by their impact on the world around them.
"Emotional management issues" is a cool way to justify "being a dumb fuck and causing harm towards the others."
If we're going to play this card - that it's fine for people to cause harm to others, as long as they have some "emotional reason" to do so - I'm pretty sure that we could explain Kate's behaviour based on her background. Perhaps daddy not giving her enough attention, or some other dumb shit.
But nooo, that should be only applied when convenient. Never in a fair and just way. Right? Rules for thee, not for me.
What you're calling "common sense" is "to justify harm based on esoteric shit like intentions". I'm not buying it.
A rapist, kidnapper, sadist (Kate) is a
less worse person who
also engages in sexual abuse,
also locks someone against their will,
also traumatises someone else (with the MC - the pig-ghost),
also shows signs of sadism (against Spinach), and is a murderer
Yes.