Alright, I'll admit I went off on Gram more than I should have. Bad weekend, shouldn't have taken that out on him. My issue is the blanket of "revival is bad no matter the story being written" that's being thrown around. I actually understand where Gram's coming from quite a bit, in that we have a good amount of examples of resurrection that were written or implemented badly in recent years, most commonly in the shonen genre and in comic books. One recent example would be Orihime from Bleach. The second they showed her power being capable of bringing back someone who was vaporized from the waist up, the concept of death did become cheapened. However, I was also taking other things into consideration beyond the act of the revival itself, and ONLY setting my willing suspension of disbelief withing the confines of the series, such as the fact that Orihime's the one in control of that power, the ease at which she can bring it to bear, as well as her character traits. At the same time, there was at least one case where there was a good story told for someone else BECAUSE it was Orihime that held that power. Specifically, Apacci of Harribel's Fraccion in an official side story that took place in the immediate aftermath of the Fake Karakura Town battle. Simply put, Apacci valued Harribel so highly that she swallowed her own pride and begged Orihime to heal her Captain. Literally dragged her own wounded self into the Shinigami's camp (which put herself at extreme risk of death) just to beg her for help.
The other point that I'm trying to make is that resurrection is still a valid tool in a writer's repertoire that can be used to tell an incredibly dramatic story, albeit a tool that should be very much handled with care. Based on the limitations set for the tool of resurrection, you can make a story out of questions like "is it worth the risk to do this?", and those questions can be pursued by both hero and villain alike. Ra's al Ghul thought it was worth the risk to use one of his Lazarus Pits on Jason Todd, since a good deal of his motivation was that Bruce Wayne succeeds him as the head of his organization, despite knowing full well of the risk of mental instability that comes with the Pits' effects, drawbacks he himself experiences when he uses them to extend his longevity.
Believe it or not, an example of a good revival tool WAS the Dragonballs, at least until they had Dende create a customized set during the Cell arc. That set didn't have the "one revival per person" limitation that Kami set did, so it was at that point where death really became cheap as a concept for that series. At the same time, it was hitting the limits of Kami's set that sparked the Namek arc to begin with, moreso since they'd also lost that set when Piccolo died (they wouldn't have been able to bring Chaoztu back with Kami's set anyway). Still, there was a story to tell based on the fact that they were willing to risk travel to an unknown planet and brave the dangers there just for the opportunity to get their friends back. The one big thing I only recently realized is that Bulma, Krillin and Gohan didn't consider the possibility that the quest might have been a fool's errand from the start, just from the lack of information. They simply assumed that another set would be enough to revive ALL of their friends, but as a "what if" scenario, that when they get around to asking for Chaoztu's life to be returned, Porunga has this line for them:
"That soul has already been touched by our magic in that manner and cannot be touched so again."
NOW you've established a point where death has some finality to it, since in this manner, you make the point that the Dragonballs have the same magic at their cores, even if the person creating each set is different. Then the quest started way back when becomes bittersweet, because while you've succeeded in returning Tein and Yamcha to life, you were never able to do that for Chaotzu and Krillin, and now they also know that they can't do it again for the first two, no matter how many sets of Dragonballs they have access to.
Even then, I take the mindset that with every concept that's available to a writer, including death and revival, I see it in the scope of each piece of fiction on its own and set my willing suspension of disbelief based on that. A gritty, real-world+ series with no supernatural elements whatsoever like Black Lagoon or Jormungand would have their options extremely limited, to the point where the only thing I'd be willing to accept is the "Not Really Dead" use of character revival. And while I have not seen RvB, I understand the issues with how I've heard of the way that they brought Donut back, since the Haloverse, IIRC, is the same level of grittiness and therefore really doesn't lend itself well to the resurrection of organic characters. With RWBY, I don't get that sense of real-world ultra-realism (especially because Salem as a key representative of the supernatural elements wa supposedly ALWAYS a thing from the beginning), despite what's already happened, so I'm more willing to consider the resurrection options liberally. It's still gotta be written well, which I'll restate IS a hard thing to do. However, it CAN be done; the idea that it absolutely cannot is both a falsehood and an extreme line of thought that I find no value in entertaining. Despite what you may think, it is NOT an iron-clad rule that character resurrection negates the death being reversed or cheapens the concept of death just by its mere presence in the story.
"I like that death is a consequence and I dont want that overturned just so people will get their ship back."
You're also assuming that this is the ONLY reason why people want Pyrrha back. The vast majority of us see the potential in story-telling in her continued use as a character in her own right, not just as a vehicle for others (and that includes her own death).
"(I especially dont want it after fans on other sites were saying they
was "ruining monty's stork" when they was following his plans)"
Now this part of your last post makes you come off as somewhat spiteful towards anyone who saw flaws in the writing (and there are both many and major, ones that go far beyond Pyrrha's death), at least as spiteful as you probably think I am. Sorry, but Monty, for all the respect and praise he got, is still human and just as capable of flaws as any of us. No one's work is above criticism.
Odds are, I'm probably not going to convince you completely, Gram. But I hope that, at least, I've gotten you to at least think about where the other side of this is coming from, and that there's a good deal of gray in what you currently see as an absolute situation. I at least have given you that courtesy. I know where you're coming from with your viewpoint, and while I ultimately do not agree with it for these reasons and several beyond this, I still understand it.