Talk:Gerson/@comment-30829949-20161105082809/@comment-27701762-20161105171139

So, acknowledging that you yourself have acknowledged that the theory isn't particularly good:

You're engaging in the fallacy of post hoc, ergo propter hoc (translated: after it, therefore because of it). To understand the nature of the fallacy, assume that two days in a row you woke up in the morning and had a bowl of ice cream. Later on both of those days you noticed that it rained outside. What you are doing now would be akin to reaching the conclusion that, in this hypothetical scenario, it had rained outside because you ate ice cream.

That Undyne and Gerson both lack sight in one eye, noting that A) it is not the same eye, and B) Gerson is never mentioned as being part of the Royal Guard, simply a famous monster warrior, is not in itself sufficient evidence that they lost that sight because they were head of or part of the Royal Guard. In contrast, the canine members of the Royal Guard all have both of their eyes, eliminating that you lose sight if you are part of the Royal Guard, and in one of the Neutral Route endings Papyrus is made head of the Royal Guard, but still has both "eyes" (i.e. he is not wearing an eyepatch or anything of the like). So that eliminates that you lose sight if you are head of the Royal Guard. Instead, there is likely a different explanation for why each of them lost their eye, which could be related to being in the Royal Guard, since people who engage in fights are significantly more likely to suffer permanent wounds than those who don't, but would not be specifically because they joined.