Saber and Diarmuid as platonic mutuals is the only acceptable answe
Saber and Diarmuid as platonic mutuals is the only acceptable answe
I don't really see anything interesting in Arturia and Diarmuid considering F/Z Arturia is a terrible out of character construct made by Gen solely for hamfisted drama and lolhonor stuff.
So can you really say their interactions are cool if one of the characters is not really themself the entire time?
Achilles.
But was she out of character if her character in FSN was a direct result of what happened in the Fourth Holy Grail War?Originally Posted by Menwearpink
I mean that would mean she would loosen up her morals as a direct result of Kerrys actions, and his criticism of her 'hnr'. Which I don't think she would.
Don't forget Rider basically dismissed and invalidated her entire principle of kingship, and she saw that if she tried to be "honorable" in the quest for the Grail, she'd only be trod upon and beaten down.
The thing is, shes did do dishonorable stuff during war, she had no problem with the stuff. She was only ever about 'honor' when facing a fellow knight in 1 to 1 combat.
What Rider dismissed was that a King should serve the people, and completely detach themselves from being like them as a person; he argued that a King must instead being the pinnacle of a human, being extreme in everything they do with all the pros and the cons that come as such.
Last edited by Urameshi Yūsuke; August 18th, 2018 at 01:23 PM.
Considering Urobuchi essentially wrote a basfic, how exactly can it not be OOC?
So
what’s the question now?
Yeah, he said that, true, but he also told Saber point blank that she only saved people, never lead them, and that she wasn't worthy of being addressed as a fellow king. The part about only saving and never leading in particular stuck with her, and it made her believe she was at fault for her kingdom falling, and it made her change her wish from doing over her reign to erasing her existence and letting someone else become King instead because they could have done better. Also, Saber was also "betrayed" by Kiritsugu right at the end because seemingly out of the blue (to her), he forced her to destroy the ticket to her salvation against her will when previously she thought they both wanted the Grail, and so she definitely got bitter after that. Furthermore, Kiritsugu's lack of honor stretched her tolerance quite a bit, and the admittedly brutal way he disposed of Lancer and Kayneth made her lose what little faith she had in him. Finally, Lancelot's madness really got to her, and with all that happened to her and all the time she had to think about it on that hill at Camlann, it's no surprise she turned more bitter like she was in FSN.
It's like a chicken and the egg situation, but Saber's character in FSN didn't exist in Zero, and as you said, it's basically a baswork, so how can she be OOC if the C doesn't exist yet?
The C did exist. It was just disregarded because the prequel author wanted to bash on her. It's very simple.
In fact, the C existed even in-story because we know Arturia was fighting dirty during the wars back in her time. Kiritsugu would know that as well.
It's literally, in-between her life & FSN's period, that Arturia is essentially acting OOC.
Wasn't that addressed in the story itself? Arturia chose to be summoned in the Grail War because she thought it was a better alternative to the wars she knew in life; an honorable battleground where heroes could fight without involving entire nations or innocent civilians. Seeing Kiritsugu stomp all over that idea was what pissed her off, not his "dirty tactics" themselves.
I don't think Urobutcher was even truly bashing Artoria in Zero, since Kiritsugu's ideals weren't spared either, nor was anything else he did, and honestly, I came out thinking both had a point, but neither on their own was correct. I personally lean towards Artoria's side of things, but that's just me.
Yes, this. And besides, the key parts of her character, such as her wanting to change Britain's fate and her martyr complex, remained largely unchanged, but her perspective on the War itself was far more naive and trusting, since she saw it as a second chance and not assisted suicide/retcon.
There's very little bashing, and what bashing there is comes from a manchild accusing her of the same thing he does, and two tyrants who, I dunno about you, but I'd rather assassinate than have anywhere near my country. Butcher & Nasu were right when they said Zero was basically "Saber gets bullied"- it's not as if bullies have a reason for anything they do.
It's true she did save people rather than lead them, but that's rich coming from the guy who had to get into a fight with a god-wrecking weapon to chill out and stop being a bastard to the country he ruled, and the guy whose "reign" was just him murdering his way across the continent because he wanted to go to a tourist spot.
FGO Supports
Very true. Iskandar, despite his general affability, charisma, and decent point, really was an unapologetic tyrant who led his men on a basically impossible quest for 20 years. However, he did, both in real life and in his Nasuverse backstory, attempt to exchange cultural ideas between his realms, fuse Greek and Eastern ideas, and generally unite his people, and despite his territorial gains being quickly reversed, his cultural gains were long-lasting, since some people in Central Asia still spoke Greek up to the early 20th century.
Since Zero is explicitly not set in the exact same timelines as FSN, I chalk up the differences in characterization to that.
The alternate continuity is a practical retcon for certain events of the fourth war mentioned in F/SN that were changed when F/Z was actually written.
If by "wrote a bashfic" you mean "basically wrote half her character as we know her today", sure.
- - - Updated - - -
>An unapologetic tyrant
He was practically worshipped (and no, I don't mean as a god-king like Darius and the Pharaohs were) by his army, his rule was an improvement for pretty much every single one of his subjects, and he was not an iota more or less authoritarian than any of the kings of his era... so what exactly makes him a tyrant? A conqueror, sure, an empire builder, yes, but a tyrant? No. Not even by the original meaning of the word, since he inherited his kingdom.
- - - Updated - - -
Please tell me you're not being serious.the guy whose "reign" was just him murdering his way across the continent because he wanted to go to a tourist spot.
shit BL says
Once and always and nevermore.
It took like a decade for Alexander's men to get tired of his shit, but before then he was absolutely beloved. And even then a large part of it was a fear that he was being too nice to his conquests, taking a Persian bride and being far too much of a Persiaboo which constituted a threat to Hellenism.
That's literally his final moment in F/Z, the dream he wants to be reincarnated into the modern world so he can start world war 3 so he can achieve.
He wants to go to the beach.
FGO Supports
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
NA
JP
