>>107080789I believe that because the show is less about Star, they're taking the right path with Moon and having her resign from her obligations. Without the conflict and interaction between the two, it would be impossible to properly express her stance and station, the same way it's impossible to make Eclipsa an ambiguous villain because we no longer have Star to compare her two. In my example, having Moon not be an antagonist, but an opposing force, is the best way to handle her.
I would find it interesting to have Moon believe she carries the weight of the world on her shoulders, and that the reason she didn't penalize Star for losing Glossaryck is because she believes it's her fault the Book was lost, because she gave Star too much freedom. I would like for Star and Moon to have conflict be built up because Moon is growing more and more domineering since she's technically lost Star already, and she doesn't want Star to ever be put into a position to die again out of a justifiable phobia from losing Comet inexplicably and out of nowhere.
More than that, I would like it if Star's pursuit of a more egalitarian society come into conflict with Moon's authoritarian forms, not only in how lowly Mewmans are treated, but monsters as well. Star supporting monsters evolves the argument from Star vs. Moon to Star vs. family, because monsters are what killed Comet. Star giving monsters a chance shows that she's putting her faith in an unknowable future, a chaotic, uncontrollable future, as opposed to Moon's safe, conservative, certain future. The conflict between the protagonist should never be against another individual, but against an ideal. Individuals are reductive. Ideals are expansive.
In summary, Moon can only represent absolute order if Star is the protagonist. Star is no longer the protagonist, so Moon is free to be, well, "free".
