Seems like it would contradict the entry. A trope example writeup does not need material that stands in contradiction to the trope.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Can Klaus be attributed to being a bad boss to the werewolves. When he is in fact not in charge of them. Doesn't he have to be in charge of them to be a bad boss to them?
In the Klaus section it mentions he killed childred for petty reasons
The twins he killed where the source for Papa powers
Tim was killed as a side effect of attempting to kill Davina who was a genuine threat to him.
The petty reasons seems to be added for no purpose
Regarding the whole sent the wolves after Mikael rather then protect hope out of fear comment on bad boss section.
I don't think that's correct.
It makes it sound like he rather leave his daughter defenceless and sent her protection away to fight Mikael because he's too afraid too.
While in the past he has been afraid of his father. In the Originals we have seen him actively seek out his father to fight.
Also implying that he would rather strip his daughter of defences rather then fight his father seems to go against what we have seen of the character. As Klaus has put his daughter safety above all else.
Regarding Vincent, should there be a separate entry or just combine with Finn?
Is there any real reason to add the fact that Klaus is not above hurting children in the Anti Villan section? We already have it stated in that he would hurt a child. Mentioning and adding his petty reasons seems more about complaints about the character then defining the character. We know he would hurt the child. Adding reasons why he sucks for it has no real point. Recomend removal for context.
Edited by Tuvok Hide / Show Replies