machchunk wrote:It sounds like you think of characterization differently than I do, then. I think of characterization as, how much can these characters stand apart from the other characters
Evidently you're defining "Characterization" as "difference from the norm" not "having a personality, motivations, and background". I must admit, that is different.
Of course, by that standard, Mr Milton has more characterization than anyone else in the comic: he's dead (different from everyone except Karl Lenin Marx), Human (different from a majority of the characters), has never appeared or spoken (different from all the other named characters), was extremely rich (different from everyone but the ferrets; even his relatives obviously were not wealthy on his scale), was apparently old (different from every character so far except, possibly, Rufus), owned six pet ferrets (more pets than anyone else and of a different type), had a different-from-the-norm attitude towards animals, lived in a much larger house than all the other characters... I could go on for some time.
machchunk wrote:If you're taking the text there to its most literal meaning, yes. You have to keep its connotation in mind - it's generally positive.
I'm afraid I can't agree; that's why have multiple words and phrases - protagonists, antagonists, heroes, villains, secondary characters, comic relief, and many more. There are an enormous number of protagonists who are in no way positive figures, thus "Antiheroes". Connotations are invariably personal, and differ from individual to individual - which is why they are of little use in communication.
machchunk wrote:Bino isn't a bad person. He's not immoral, as far as I can tell, and he cares about others. He's just at times overzealous, and he's very sensitive to what he perceives to be claims to his authority.
As for Bino... Lets see; we have involving Peanut in the Game (an action that can offers no actual benefit to Peanut OR to Bino, but which could cause emotional harm), harassing Tiger (the fact that many other dogs do it is not an excuse), plotting against Peanut (who hadn't done anything, but was apparently an easier target) when it was Fido who overrode his authority to readmit peanut to the Good Ol Dogs Club, his own statement that his plan was mean-spirited, his refusal to help search for Zachary when it is fairly obvious that an inexperienced rabbit out on his own is in serious danger, and his giving King an explosive "present" with the rationale that a factor King had no control over - what Pete had named him - had offended him (this, by the way, falls under the usual definition of "hate crime").
I'd count his tirade about Fido as a product of simple jealousy. Similarly, despite Fox's complaint about him using and discarding "every one of us", there was no actual harm done to anyone else in that instance, and thus no real offense.
Now, I find Bino quite understandable, and not particularly unsympathetic. This does not change the fact that he has intentionally and with forethought inflicted harm on others who have not harmed him and has taken satisfaction in doing so. That fits the definition of malice. Whether that makes him a "bad person" is a value judgement that is inevitably going to be based on personal standards, although we can probably agree that it constitutes misbehavior at the least.
machchunk wrote:The comment that I made first was that - as I said above - I think the way alignments are handled should be changed.
Now "alignment" wasn't actually mentioned in the post sequence to which I am replying (it may have been mentioned earlier, but I don't recall it) before. From context, I suspect you're using it as it's used in various role-playing games. I'd have to say that this strip has personalities, not alignments, and most of the characters will have both good and bad features. Thus, for example, while most of the readers would say that Peanut is a "good person", he still took pleasure in Bino being injured - not a particularly "good" moment.
machchunk wrote:Now I'm also saying that it is not impossible to make the change in a comic about animals, and making it would not ruin the story, as you seem to think.
"Ruining the story" was not mentioned anywhere. That's your own interpolation. Since I don't hold such a position, I'm afraid that I would have to classify it as a "Straw Man" argument.
machchunk wrote:but you didn't see that and argued the literal terms - just like you did my original post.
As for "arguing the literal terms", I - like most people - can read only what was actually written, not what you meant it to mean. If you wish to use modified definitions of words without noting both that fact and the changes you are introducing, then you are likely to be misunderstood.
machchunk wrote:I said the things you contest in this quote so you might figure out that I think what you said is silly
Unfortunately, the statement you quoted does not contest anything. It's an observation of personal perplexity. You do have another tautology there though: I stated that I could not see what you meant, and you've stated that I didn't see what you meant. I suppose that means that we at agree on something.
