Wasnt there a statement is the Lostroom material that the pruning phenomenon comes from "Humanity" instead of the universe in general. Its not a rule of how the universe works, but instead of how the universe works for humans?
I mean it fits with the ideas of Prime Ones anyhow. Alongside with how HS are also another phenomenon of Humanity.
"Only in my company, will you not be a monster"
anywhere than here
"The Human Order Incineration by the King of Magic was performed by him alone, but the Pruning Phenomenon is conducted by human history itself, pages which are incinerated by the collective will of humanity"Originally Posted by Iceblade44
And then we have the Cosmos Tree containing a miniature universe with galaxies and stuffs (it even bursts gamma rays like real galaxies so it seems to be real things stored in the tree for some reason), and the tree can be used to replace the pan-human history timeline. Shit doesn't make any sense lol.
- - - Updated - - -
Speaking of Goetia, Skadi did said something similar to Scathach in the trial quest, about the work of bleaching the planet and maintaining the Lostbelts is beyond Authorities of gods, just like the incineration by Goetia, a Beast. Makes me wonder if it's just a Scathach reference or something else.
In that case, what's the purpose of progress and change?
(Other than "so we can produce more story arcs and spinoffs.")
Last edited by Walnut Sparks; December 13th, 2018 at 12:42 PM.
O walls, you have held up so much tedious graffiti that I am amazed you have not already collapsed in ruin.
IDK but the gardener in charge of the time tree really wants humanity to make it to space
And then there's Kotomine.
That's just unlucky he got hit by a QTL.
Do you think pruning takes away the meaning of progress? I mean, no matter how much progress is made, the universe is still going to end someday anyhow. If there's a limited amount of energy, I don't see the harm in cutting the supply of worlds that have reached their happy ending early for the sake of worlds still striving to reach theirs.
It's a shitty system, no doubt, but considering the circumstances, it could be worse.
I've been thinking for a while now that it is precisely because of the Pruning phenomenon. The world that manages to leave Earth will have more energy to spare, instead of relying on a single solar system, they can rely on as many stars as they can reach, massively delaying or maybe countering the possibility of being pruned altogether.
I'm not sure which is worse, that we're mixing up actual scientific energy with mumbo jumbo destiny potential energy that fuels parallel timelines, or that Nasu is the one doing the mixing. Either option gives me a headache.
shit BL says
Once and always and nevermore.
I don't have a problem with pruning as a part of the setting metaphysics, but the way it has retroactively affected some stories does bother me. Like knowing that if Amakusa won in Apo or Kirei won in Fate that the timeline would get deleted kind of takes some of the wind out of the story, to me.
Would that have happened though?
Spoiler:
Knowing that if the antagonists had won there would have been a bad ending for the story takes the wind out of it?
ETA: I mean, I could understand that feeling if the conflicts in those stories had been presented as morally grey ones, but that's not the case with either of them.
It deletes the chance of Mad Max style spin off.
I think the train of thought is that the world being pruned if the bad guy wins means there's just nothing left. There are no consequences for the world to live with, no nothing, because nothing will exist anymore, so it's all just pointless then.
But then, you could say it's the same (for those whom it matters to) when the stakes are literal world-ending schemes too, but nobody complains about those so...
Kirei: There has been too much violence, too much pain. None here are without sin, but I have an honorable compromise: just walk away. Leave the Grail, and I spare your lives. Just walk away. I will give you safe passage in the wasteland. Just walk away and there will be an end to the horror. I await your answer. You have one full day to decide.
Issei: What is it with you, huh? What are you looking for? Come on, Shirou. Everybody's looking for something. You're happy out there? Are you? Wandering, one day blurring into another? You're a scavenger, Shirou. You're a maggot. Did you know that? You're living off the corpse of the old world.
I know what you're getting at, and the same thought came to me as I was writing my post. I'm not sure why the pruning part bothers me so much more when it would have been a bad end anyway without the pruning. But it does.
I guess it's what Savepoints is getting at. I haven't really thought into why it bugs me beyond that it does.
Last edited by Reign; December 13th, 2018 at 04:30 PM.
Cause the Bad Guy "wouldn't" win because their end of the world would be irrelevant compared to pruning?
It's like, if the good guys lose, nothing happened. That entire history gets deleted. So we only have Good and Normsl Ends
Bad Guys can't win, Moriarty was right
^ So like when you use save scum tactics to avoid the Bad Ends, how very Meta...
"Here's a bangin lil' tune about takin' on The Man!"
(Check out my Super Special Awesome Servant Compendium here)
Those are usually the stakes.
If a bad guy wins, bad things happen.
If the good guy wins, good things happen.
Though abandoned, forgotten, and scorned as out-of-date dolls, they continue to carry out their mission, unchanged from the time they were designed.
Machines do not lose their worth when a newer model appears.
Their worth (life) ends when humans can no longer bear that purity.
I kind of see where you're coming from. It'd be like having one of those philosophical dilemmas where you're forced to choose between torturing a terrorist to find out where a bomb is or let ten innocent people get blown up, and then adding "Oh by the way, if you pick torture the terrorist's friends come by and get revenge by dropping an even bigger bomb that blows up 10x as many people".
It takes a potentially fascinating and complex moral dilemma (whether one can be justified in committing evil to prevent a greater evil) and simplifies it into a crude matter of self-preservation. In the same way, I think Sieg and Jeanne's decision to reject Amakusa's ideals has a lot more moral weight if you assume those ideals would genuinely have worked as intended, rather than being undone by some totally unknowable Diabolus-Ex-Machina.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
