Ericwinter
Definitely not a Skaven Infiltrator
- Location
- America
Fair enough, as is all the rest. But here specifically, I think I was running off something close to the actual dictionary definition—not that I had that specific one in mind—which when I do a google search comes up as "a feeling of mystery and excitement in association with love". Mostly the Love part, and basically that a romance needs depth of feeling, and length of time to be considered a romance rather than, say, a fling. Not that it's totally correct, of course, but I've never actually heard things like a single night of passion be called "romance", and I've seen a lot of things be called romance.It required dedication. many healthy relationships and Romances do involve to people dedicating themselves to each other, but not all Romances do in my opinion, that's what I was trying to say there.
I... can't say I understand singling out a specific person to deny just for being said person, but it's your choice, I suppose. I wouldn't expect many people to agree though.I think some misunderstanding probably took place, yeah. Passion and interests in somebody's magic or nature could count, yeah, just... It's hard to express exactly. I guess it's more like an objection to the selected person, the dragon, specifically. That, to use an example or comparison, if it were passion and interest in Gilding or restoring the Caldera to life or waystones or maybe artillery or pets or whatever, it could work -- because those people would be Johann or Panoramia or Oswald. But there'd be more there, too. (i.e. If it were Max or Oswald or Kazrik or Gotri in the place here, and somebody was making the argument of wanting to get close to them over shared academic interest or interests in artillery or interests in runesmithing or curiosity about engineering... I'd shrug and go sure. But because it's the dragon, that's gets a 'No, because...' from me.) (Because I feel that those people, even if chosen to be approached for/from that particular reason... there'd still be more and other stuff, like the stuff I was sort of trying to define or explain, there too.)
Ah, see, here's where the misunderstanding took place, I think. For some reason, you're equating the romantic interest with a particular goal. Like, "date a nerd if you want to be a scientist", and then claiming because they're superfluous to the goal—or at least being in a romantic relationship with them is—they shouldn't be considered for said interest. When instead they're simply attractive traits, such as. "I date nerds because they're smart, and it makes my heart flutter when they talk about nerdy stuff." Or for a more relevant example, I don't support the dragon as a legitimate option because I want to do research and to pick his brain—i do want that, but it's not why—but because the thought of an intelligent, powerful partner that loves books and can slaughter armies saying they love us makes me smile and feel all warm and fuzzy inside. It's the person that interests me, not what they can do for Mathilde. And if we ended up with anyone else, yes, we would lose that specific relationship for a shallower one with the dragon. Just like we would lose the chance for The adorable, perceptive, and cheerfully lethal Panoramia to say she loved us if we chose the dragon.And for the second paragraph... Well it's sort of like... If you want to explore otherworldly nature and magic and stuff, you still can do that even if the dragon doesn't win the romance vote. (Because, behold how many people would still be interested in pursuing that sort of stuff even afterwards. One of my posts -- maybe the same one -- said that too.) But if the humans lost the vote then if you want to pursue intimacy or a family or emotional closeness or sex still, then... you see the issue there, right?
Does that make sense? Sorry if not, it's pretty late and I'm about to go to bed.