Posts from [ANOTHER FLAME WAR] Are dragons overpowered or not? Auto-translated

or is it a specific period, and anime just likes to depict girls with, shall we say, attractive features?
P.S. Revanko will be here soon, angry, calling names, and wanting to start a new flame war.

No problem, we already have experience in sparking heated debates in the Revan style, so this won't intimidate us.

I don't care, I'm going to eat and watch cartoons now, maybe I'll come back later and make a map.

Ar, I forgot to say "kisses and hugs to everyone in this chat"))

That's a brilliant idea. Has either of us actually seen a real dragon to argue about it?)) lol, they're practically nonexistent x(

This brilliant idea was voiced quite some time ago. And it's obvious that we're talking about something generally accepted. What's not to understand?

Okay, if you don't understand the meaning of the word "entertaining" and can't turn a semi-argumentative discussion into a peaceful, friendly conversation, it's not my fault. I'll be serious as a Komodo dragon too.
This person can't relax and takes every word seriously. I'm willing to bet they don't understand why we haven't argued yet.

You shouldn't vouch for everyone. However, such categorical judgments, both yours and your friend's, are quite possibly due to your young age.

And now, ON THE TOPIC: In my opinion, "works" are not only literary. Above, I provided several drawings where dragons are shown from different perspectives. I'm not denying that in some works, dragons are portrayed as cruel and evil creatures (I myself wrote something similar with dragons in a negative role when I was 8-10 years old), but nevertheless, THERE ARE works where winged creatures are quite intelligent and often friendly. There may not be many of them, but they DO exist, and that's the main thing. Therefore, it follows that you shouldn't lump ALL dragons together, as one of our acquaintances is trying to do.
P.S. By the way, I just remembered Asprin and his Myth series. Gleep is a creature with the sweetest soul, as it turns out in one of the parts - quite intelligent, and overall - very friendly and playful.

I didn't say anywhere that I only mean books. Fantasy works in general, your guess for this thesis turned out to be correct.
Of course, there are exceptions in many rules, but these are precisely exceptions. And they are rare. And if that's the case, then they can often be eliminated, especially when it comes to works of intellectual labor. I can come up with anything, and my idea will be valid. But there are certain canons that will remain so. Usually, canons come from the original idea.
Dragons were invented long before Tolkien and Perumov. They were invented in the minds of the masses, which were oriented towards mythology.
And according to these very canons, they are large, stupid animals with a strange digestive system and the ability to lift ten tons into the air with these leathery wings that are not suitable for this. Quite banal creatures, after their image has been overused everywhere possible. Which brings us back to the initial question on the topic and supports the first option.

P.S. Various versions of intelligent dragons-mages, reading minds, moving mountains, immensely wise, extraordinarily kind, emitting clouds of poisonous gases and firestorms - are even more pathetic. Such images mainly arise in the minds of complexed people as a reaction of compensation.

Of course, there are exceptions to many rules, but these are precisely exceptions, and they are rare. Therefore, it is often possible to eliminate them, especially when it comes to works of intellectual labor.

Show me a rule that states that dragons MUST be evil and terrifying creatures. This is not documented anywhere. So, it is not worth speaking categorically about "rules" and "exceptions." Just as it is not worth presenting stereotypes as rules and rejecting alternative options simply because they do not fit into a favorite theory.

However, such categoricalness in your judgments and the judgments of your friend is quite possibly due to your young age.

If you think that your seriousness is an indicator of maturity, you are deeply mistaken. This section is also frequented by quite mature people. They come here to relax and unwind. And you, as I see, are not striving to relax. Do you want to appear older and smarter than you are? Or do you simply think that we are not worthy of communicating with us on an equal footing, and therefore you adopt a stern look to show that we are as far from you as Peking is from crabs? Believe me, many of us, if we wish, can write quite serious and intelligent things, but they do it in the appropriate sections. Here, we simply entertain ourselves as best we can. In one topic, we argue about one thing, in another - about something else, and with a different group of people, in a third - we sing songs together as a friendly company. And everything is quiet and peaceful, a pleasant and friendly atmosphere. It is a pity that you do not feel it and reject it.

Well, I managed to sort out a great topic after all. :smile54:

P.S. Revanko will come soon, and he'll be angry.

Revanko and anger, quite a strange combination. Remember when I last came and started insulting everyone? :D

It's okay, we already have experience in starting flame wars in Revanko's style, so nothing can scare us)))

You're hurting my feelings :(

Revan, almost every day, right?
P.S. Yes, yes, this topic is good, but what will happen when you find out the truth? Muhahaha.

Okay, show me the "rule" that states that, for example, a sphinx must have the body of a cat and not a dog. Or that a minotaur must have a bull's head and not a rat's head. These are mythological creatures, not real ones. The neighbor from the stairwell, during a break between swigs of cheap port wine, might say that a minotaur should have a rat's head. Since minotaurs don't exist, why couldn't he be right? So, the neighbor is right? Are these stereotypes? I'm having a discussion, not making personal attacks. But these childishly categorical, albeit sometimes humorous, loud statements that "I'm right, and everyone else should shut up," or that something always happens one way and not another, directed at me, are very irritating. Or when, unable to refute someone else's opinion, they start accusing them of being stubborn. Do you understand?

You're hurting my feelings :(

After those two heated debates, you don't scare me anymore ;D

Okay, show me the "rule" that states that, for example, a sphinx must have the body of a cat and not a dog. Or that a minotaur must have a bull's head and not a rat's.
These are mythological creatures, not real ones. A neighbor from the stairwell, during a break between sips of cheap port wine, might say that a minotaur should have a rat's head. Since minotaurs don't exist, why couldn't he be right? Is that right? Did the neighbor make a valid point? Are these stereotypes?

You're talking about appearance, I'm talking about character. Don't you think these are two different things? There are, albeit conditional, canons of appearance, but the character is individual for each creature.

I'm having a discussion, not resorting to personal attacks.
But such childishly categorical, albeit sometimes joking, loud statements that "I'm right, and everyone else should shut up," or that something always happens one way and not another, directed at me, are very annoying. Or when, unable to refute someone else's opinion, they start accusing them of being stubborn. Do you understand?

Where did I say that I am definitely right? I said that you have a limited opinion and you simply don't want to accept and understand something that you don't like. That's why you start nitpicking and making unfounded, repetitive statements on the entire topic. And I apologize for the personal attack – it happened simply because of my character.

You're talking about appearance, I'm talking about character. Don't you think these are somewhat different things? There are, albeit conditional, canons of appearance, but character is individual for each creature.

Not the best remark. The neighbor could have said that a minotaur is a wise man, quotes classics, and kills because of his worldview. The same thing. But a minotaur doesn't actually exist; you can't prove otherwise.
So, is this a stereotype?

Where did I say that I am definitely right? I said that you have a limited opinion.

etc.

Enough has been said, hasn't it? And with all the confidence and categoricalness.
"You don't want to accept," "unfounded statements" - all this is just empty talk. And not the most convincing. We are discussing. At least we are trying. A poll implies choosing one of the answer options, right? Can you choose both at once? That would be silly. In this case, my opinion is in no way more limited than yours, even though it does not coincide with yours.

I apologize for the personal attack - it happened simply because of my character.

Apology accepted.

Revan, almost every day, right?

Proof?

Not the best observation. A neighbor could just as easily say that a minotaur is a sage who quotes the classics, but kills because of his worldview. Same thing. But a minotaur doesn't actually exist, and the opposite cannot be proven.
So is that a stereotype?

Well, please. If a neighbor decided that a minotaur is a sage—that is his opinion, he wants to create such an image. I won't stop him, as long as he doesn't strive too hard to prove that his image and only his is the correct one.
Dragons don't exist either, so you can't prove your opinion either. Though, I can't prove mine either.
Yes, a stereotype. I love breaking stereotypes. That's exactly why in the world I'm inventing, harpies have the most advanced technology, dwarves are some of the best mages and most peaceful races, and elves boast multicolored skin (but that's not relevant to character). And no one will force me to do otherwise. But at the same time, I accept the fact that there are worlds where harpies are aggressive semi-animals, dwarves are warlike creatures who despise magic, and elves have exclusively pale-aristocratic/noble-tanned/black-as-the-darkness-of-dungeons skin. Perhaps I was mistaken or didn't look closely enough, but in your posts, I only saw the imposition of a single opinion regarding the character of dragons, even when people spent several pages trying to prove to you that dragons can be different. Note—no one is saying that dragons are EXCLUSIVELY cute, fluffy, and kind sweeties. In my opinion, it is common knowledge that a dragon, particularly a European one, is associated with evil forces. Meanwhile, in the East, for example, a dragon is a quite peaceful, wise, and positive beast. Also a tradition, a canon, a rule. And also about dragons.
Regarding appearance, for example, of centaurs or minotaur. If memory serves me correctly, these words themselves hint at the appearance of the creature they name. Of course, certain variations of appearance are permissible and even necessary (Creation, flights of fancy, and so on), but everything has its limits. Whether to draw a tail on a minotaur or not, to give it horns or not, to make it a dull killer or a wise, kind philosopher—one can think about that. But attaching a rat's head—now that's just stupidity.

Enough has been said, hasn't it? And with total confidence and categoricity.
"You don't want to accept," "unfounded statements"—all of this is fluff. Moreover, not the most effective in terms of persuasiveness. We are debating. At least we are trying to. A poll implies choosing one of the answer options, correct? Can one choose both at once? That would be stupid. My opinion, in that case, is no more limited than yours, despite the fact that it does not coincide with yours.

Hmm. If I say your opinion is limited, it doesn't mean that I am right. I can also be wrong; I allow for that. Moreover, "limited opinion" in this case is not an insult, but simply an attempt to somehow force you to consider another point of view. [lyrical digression] Yes, I can be aggressive, but actually, somewhere deep-deep down, I am a kind fluffy sweetie. [/lyrical digression] Perhaps I've spent too much time in the off-topic chat and I'm just uncomfortable talking seriously. Hence such attacks. Nevertheless, as stated above—I haven't seen you take another's opinion into consideration. You claim that dragons are ONLY stupid killers, and you dismiss "rare exceptions to the rule" as unnecessary. Yes, I understand this is your opinion, your attitude, but one should still be at least a little more objective. For example, I don't like Tolkien because I'm tired of him. But I don't dismiss the fact that he is perhaps the founder of fantasy. I also don't like Leonardo da Vinci's style and manner of painting. But in my eyes, he is still a great artist. That's what I'm talking about. We've all understood and accepted your opinion, yet you still don't consider others'. This discussion itself is quite fascinating and interesting, I'd just like to conduct it in a more friendly and positive tone. After several attempts to bring the conversation closer to a semi-off-topic friendly manner, I hit a wall of seriousness, closed-mindedness, and a certain categoricity. Naturally, I couldn't like that. Hence all the outbursts. A bit less sharpness (yes, from both sides)—and the conflict will be resolved.
Regarding the voting. Yes, you need to choose only one option. But that doesn't mean the second one is wrong. The second one might simply be disliked, because tastes differ. In this case, that's exactly how it is on my part. Despite stereotypical ideas about classical "Western" dragons, I very much love these beautiful (SUBJECTIVELY) and wonderful (SUBJECTIVELY) creatures. Therefore, I try to prove that they aren't just bloodthirsty overgrown lizards, but also kind fluffy (well, I went too far here, a fluffy dragon is overkill) sweeties. I'll say it again, this depends ONLY on the author's imagination. It will be however they want it.

Accepted.

Heh, well thanks. I sincerely hope the conflict will be settled.

Revan, no way, figure it out yourself, I can't be bothered). But you often wrote a three-letter word, and that's an insult) :P

Added 8 minutes later
What does the limit have to do with it? And why am I shortening words? Certainly not for quick writing.

The limit is that, if you don't shorten the words, you can write it in about 30 seconds, and the messages won't pop up.