Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-12036244-20160813193200/@comment-27701762-20160813215628

DreamSoulshine wrote: Mabian wrote: DreamSoulshine wrote: Mabian wrote: So if the beginning illustrations are accurate depictions of the size of monsters and humans, then there is the problem of the picture provided immediately prior, where a monster (that looks like Toriel) is shown standing next to a human (which looks like Chara/Frisk, holding a spear), and they are pretty much the same size. But we see that Toriel and Asgore are also pretty much the same size, and that Frisk is much shorter than Toriel. That could have been either a dipiction of typical Monster and typical Human or any child Boss Monster. Except the Boss Monster in that portrait has small horns. Asriel does not have such small horns, but Toriel does. So it wouldn't be a child Boss Monster. Not to mention that said Boss Monster is dressed pretty much exactly like Toriel.

And if it is a "typical" monster and human, then by the premise set down already, it should accurately depict their sizes. Meaning that humans and monsters are of equal size (and as a result, the next picture shows a war fought between monsters and human children, or smaller-than-average humans).

Instead of thinking about how the pictures are to-scale depictions of humans and monsters, instead we should view them as relative illustrations. All issues of relative size stem from constraints of portraying characters on a 2D space without making them look strange. Monsters, or at least Boss Monsters like Asgore, are supposed to be somewhat larger than humans. The scale between Frisk and Asgore cannot be exactly as shown in that opening illustration, or else Frisk would need to be tiny (making their sprite look incredibly odd on the overworld), or else Asgore and Toriel (and presumably many of the other characters) would need to be gigantic (which also looks odd).

Again, the contrary idea rests upon the idea that every line of dialogue is incorrect, and incorrect for no reason (i.e. if Toby had ​meant ​to make Frisk an adult, why not just say so, or at least put something in the dialogue to suggest it, rather than making all of the dialogue suggest the exact opposite?). There is a tiny piece of potential evidence matched up against an entire trove of evidence. The only way that the theory that Frisk/Chara are adults works is by finding an explanation to dismiss any contrary evidence essentially out of hand. But this builds the theory on a foundation of sand. If an equally plausible narrative can be spun around the opening scenes, then the relative sizes become meaningless.

And, probably, Toby did added something to suggest, that the Protagonist could have been an adult - there a function of Flirting with many Monsters in Underground. A young child, if isn't spoiled, cannot know how to flirt, and probably doesn't have a reason to flirt with anyone. So, if they can consciously choose to flirt with monsters, if not adults, Frisk and Chara must be teens, not young children. This statement is definitely not true. Children learn from observing their environments. So if a child observes flirting in some capacity, however it is portrayed (even when it isn't directed at them), they are likely to internalize and mimic the behavior. Plenty of kids understand the basic idea of flirting, even if that flirting has no real meaning behind it and they have no genuine romantic interest.

A teen (say 13, for example), though, would still be fully consistent with the idea of Frisk and Chara being "kids" and "children." There tends to be little distinction between the two.