[ANOTHER FLAME WAR] Are dragons overpowered or not?

Auto-translated

So, is this war? Good, keep turning our cozy pub into a battlefield.

And again, this categorical tone. Yes, I probably should have added an emoji or a ")" at the end of the sentence to give it a clearly sarcastic and playful tone.

So, you think that everything should follow the established rules, without showing any imagination and constantly referring to the original source? If all of humanity thought like you, we would be sitting around a campfire eating another mammoth. New ideas and perspectives, good or bad, drive and develop. Doing the same thing over and over is boring. And a sexy elf in mithril thongs +10 will at least provide some amusement. Besides, as they say, you can find a few pearls in a pile of manure. If you are so concerned about this problem, read the theory of evolution and apply it to modern fantasy. Bad ideas will eventually die out and be forgotten. And good ones will enrich world culture.

Views on science drive and develop. But churning out identical "Original" creations to please an indiscriminate crowd for personal gain – that's a different story. And at the same time, corrupting and distorting the original sources.

If this is a reasonable and objective refutation, then I'm a crocodile. Since we're talking about mythology, let's consider the mythology of different peoples.

What does that have to do with it? We weren't talking about Eastern dragons. Read the posts on the first pages. Obviously, these are simple and banal fantasy dragons that breathe fire, with wings and not an elongated body. They are banal because they are overused, as they are shoved everywhere.

Who is standing still? We are providing examples that do not fit into your point of view. You reject them with indignation in the style of "this cannot be, because this cannot be, I don't want it, and there is no place for it in my theory." And that's been half the topic already. Have we denied the fact that there are dragons as you describe them? Point it out.

You didn't deny it. But you accused me of narrow-mindedness and a lack of perspective, ignoring what I said from your own point of view a few posts earlier.

The key word is "holy war." Who started it – me or you?

Obviously, it was the topic creator.

Or do you think I'm so bad that I can ban you for no reason? Well, you know, judging a person without knowing them is not a sign of good manners and objectivity. Before attacking me, you should have read at least some of my posts to get an overall picture. As for me, I almost always try to learn more about a person first.

Oh, the holy and offended innocent, yet in every post threatening to ban, berate, and tell people what to do, justifying all this to herself and others with a pseudo-jocular tone and periodically whitewashing herself with words like "I'm actually good."
But not everyone likes those kinds of jokes, right? Especially when they are so repetitive and the same that they have become tiresome even to me. And after all this, the same offended innocence, right? A feeling of absolute and unjustly slandered spiritual purity?
Meanwhile, the position of moderator usually attracts either scoundrels or enthusiasts. And a truly effective moderator is of the first type, even if only deep down, or openly to others.
And if you have created such an opinion of yourself in front of a stranger – me – that can only be changed by a head-on refutation of "you shouldn't think that, I'm good" – then something is wrong.

Of course, it's awkward. We sit around and chat quietly, have duels with word-slinging and banhammers, relax as much as we can, and then you show up and start talking with the most serious attitude a person is capable of. And when there is an attempt to involve you in our entertaining style of chatting, you immediately adopt an even more serious, sometimes aggressive attitude, discouraging any desire to continue the conversation.

If you are used to an infantile style of conversation, and any other style makes you uncomfortable, then I have bad news for you.

However, this style allows you to discuss serious topics without serious arguments.

I don't see anything wrong with "serious arguments."

I'm not arguing, such people exist. It's not very good to create things based on this principle. But no one has canceled the flight of creative fantasy. And what's wrong with a section for people who want to create something new?

It is bad because of the perversions, the monstrous perversions.

And these, and those, and those over there, and even those, besides, there are others. It's just how it was translated, and that's how it became. The Russians, for example, call the country Germany, and not Deutschland, and the people who live there are called Germans. Next time, specify which gnomes you mean.

It's a terrible practice. And any person who knows English clenches their fists in helpless rage when they see how translators twist and turn, translating dwarves as "gnomes," gnomes as "shorties," "tangars," and all sorts of other things.

By the way, here are a couple more examples of good dragons.
Akatosh – the dragon god of time, the king of the gods from the TES universe.

That's right. This is the terminal stage. Fortunately, it is still considered something bad by many. And here, there is no need for further reasoning about the freedom of fantasy, because the whole series is an abomination.

Well, what can you expect from a person who is not able to defend their point of view? Only a retreat and the last "anyway, I'm d'Artagnan, and you..."

P.S. There will always be someone who jumps into the discussion with their meaningless comment, like "hehe, I'll get some popcorn!!" or, in this case, a picture. Is this a lack of upbringing? A desire to attract attention? Or a kind of prophetic "drawing a line under the engrossed geeks"?

Reading content in

Interface language