Eh... shattering a gem is more than just "morally iffy". As this
Reddit post points out, when you shatter a gem you're subjecting her to a Fate Worse than Death.
We've known that Rose has done some morally questionable things before, but if that Ruby was telling the truth, then I may not be able to look at her the same way again.
No beer?! But if there's no beer, then there's no beef or beans!
The characters treat it as akin to killing someone so that's all that really matters. Any meta discussion of what more it might entail, while interesting, has no baring on how they treat it in the show.
And as for not looking at her the same way again...Rose very clearly wanted to avoid it at any cost, but sometimes things happen in war that you just can't avoid. We don't even know how it happened. Chances are Pearl and Garnet have probably shattered people too.
edited 10th Aug '16 2:23:50 PM by LSBK
Pearl was aiming for Peridot's gem in the episode where Peridot set the trap in the Centepeedles' ship, it seemed like she was trying to shatter her.
And I agree, if Pearl was Rose's Pearl it carries unfortunate nice slave owner implications. It's reminding me of Conseil and Aronnax, and how Conseil jumped overboard their ship just because Aronnax fell in the water.
edited 10th Aug '16 2:47:47 PM by PhiSat
Oissu!The way Centi crossed out some of her allies in "Monster Reunion" shows that Gems were being broken on Homeworld's side. So it seems likely the CG were willing to shatter Gems if necessary, but typically did not set out to do so. Like if a Gem is broken in the fight due to the weapons and tactics used, so be it. They just weren't using things like the Breaking Point or going around breaking poofed Gems.
Can we label Centi a Badass yet for being a non-combat Gem who nevertheless survived and fought throughout the whole war?
Oissu!@Pushover, you make it sound as though conditioning is so easy to shrug off. Pearl was given the choice but Imagine it'd always be there in the back of their heads, the constant worry of whether it is 100% Pearl's genuine choice or if somewhere in there she is still following orders like a good little Pearl.
The Blog The Art![]()
That would have been the case no matter what. Pearl, as a Pearl, longs to follow others, it's something that is still with her even now.
And she was clearly like that with Rose. Whether it was because she originally belong to Rose or not, she clearly had latched onto Rose for some reason and her Pearl instincts, or whatever you want to call it, were still clearly going strong at that point. It's meaningful because Rose tried anyway.
edited 10th Aug '16 3:07:20 PM by LSBK
![]()
What are the Unfortunate Implications again? I get it, owning people is wrong but wouldn't that be the whole point of having Pearl once belong to Rose to show off the drama of such a relationship?
If Pearl is conditioned to serve her master without fail and goes with her master into a rebellion, it doesn't give the impression she has much of a choice in the matter. Rose asked her, yes, but in the face of mental conditioning one question doesn't really mean much.
It's more powerful if Pearl managed to break her conditioning and rebelled against her master, imo.
Oissu!Something making you uncomfortable isn't the same thing as it having Unfortunate Implications.
Pearl was latched onto Rose. Whatever their relationship was, she was never going to leave no matter what Rose said. That attitude has been shown to be unhealthy.
edited 10th Aug '16 3:19:34 PM by LSBK
Her purpose for fighting was to protect Rose.
That's the distinction for me, and why I ardently believe that Pearl previously belonged to either Pink or White Diamond. It makes more sense to me that, instead of Pearl throwing her life on the line for someone she's conditioned into serving, she fell in love with Rose and her ideals and fought for that freedom. She's nobody's Pearl.
Also, yeah, Rose the nice slave owner is something I'm okay without.
![]()
Exactly, she's doing it now. I doubt Pearl was strong enough mentally do you want her to do.
Personally, I would see something like her realizing how Pearl's are treated as disposable toys as just one of the many reasons she repelled. Gems fighting against their created purpose and all.
edited 10th Aug '16 3:24:41 PM by LSBK
x4 And it becomes less meaningful if Rose was at one point the gem who owned her? I think it fits with the tragedy of Pearl's character to have belonged to Rose because the root of most of her problems come down to the dichotomy of wanting to me more then just a Pearl but at the same time her single minded devotion to Rose.
edited 10th Aug '16 3:31:43 PM by lycropath
If Pearl is doing everything out of her preprogrammed devotion to Rose, then it casts that devotion as a negative. Blue Diamond's Pearl would probably throw herself in front of a Quartz if she was asked to but you'd be hard pressed to call it a good thing.
She suffers now because she based so much of her identity over being by Rose's side. That's different than literally being Rose's shiny toy.
Also considering Rose was born on Earth, there's not much of a chance she was important enough before the rebellion to get her own Pearl.

If Pearl belong to Rose, Rose telling her she can choose for herself has meaning because it's a sign of Rose breaking away from the order she's known all her life and trying to let her servant have some agency. Going "You don't have do what I do, and if you choice to go along with me, you're still your own Gem."
If Pearl doesn't belong to Rose, it shows just how devoted Pearl is to her and what kind of person Rose is for, again, trying to break away from the strict hierarchy she's known all her life. Going "Whatever you feel for me, you don't have to throw away your life and all you've ever known."
It's a meaningful gesture in either situation.
edited 10th Aug '16 2:20:08 PM by LSBK