Talk:Queen of Hearts

}
 * I DON'T KNOW, DON'T GET YOUR PANTIES BUNCHED UP NOW—Urutapu 07:43, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

The Queen's Evidence
She thought Alice was guilty. She is the queen of hearts. She never has any evidence it was Alice ("Why do I think it was her? BECAUSE I SAID SO THAT'S WHY!")(Bananaphone1996 21:11, May 8, 2010 (UTC))

Neutral?
Why does it say the Queen of Hearts is only neutral. She seemed pretty antagonistic to me. Was she not the villain of this world. One who cuts off another's head for no reason sounds evil to me. Mind if I change it to antagonist?(Bananaphone1996 21:10, May 8, 2010 (UTC))

So what??!! Just because she doesn't use the heartless, that doesn't automatically means she isn't an antagonist.--65.247.196.50 22:59, December 1, 2010 (UTC)

Maybe true, but please dont raise your "voice". What make her "neutral" is the fact that she doesn´t keep on going after Sora, but does not help him either, just "protect" his world from the heartless. That´s pretty neutral to me.--"Behold the endless Abyss!" -- Dark-EnigmaXIII 22:20, December 3, 2010 (UTC)

Well that's true. After all, she is only defending herself and her world. I guess she can be neutral. Sorry for the yelling :)--65.126.114.121 02:11, December 4, 2010 (UTC)

Personally I'd consider her an antagonist, though. If you remember her during the trial, she was hellbent on, well, a lack of justice. I'd call that pretty antagonistic behavior. 02:15, December 4, 2010 (UTC)

That is correct, she has antagonistic nature, but it´s not an antagonist because she does not care in trying to prevent Sora from saving the worlds, she is just stubborn--"Behold the endless Abyss!" -- Dark-EnigmaXIII 02:30, December 4, 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. I guess we just keep in mind that we only list characters as antagonists if they count toward antagonists of the Kingdom Hearts story itself. 02:35, December 4, 2010 (UTC)