Could Sola-Ui have loved/fallen in love with Kayneth if the dude was less of an asshole from the start?

[mAc Chaos]

When? At the end?

He grew after Kiritsugu crippled him and right before he died.

But he died so we didn't get to see the long term result, unlike Waver.

[Rafflesiac]

Also its kind of weird how it says that Waver and Kiritsugu got an extra command spell. Imma check if that's a typo

Maybe he just thought they did?

[eddyak]

I don't deny that there was an internal logic to his actions, I'm just deriding said logic. Besides, aren't we kind of meant to relate fictional ideologies to our own in order to comprehend/enjoy works of fiction?

Eh. It depends. I'm pretty sure some people whose great grandaddies were hauled off in chains are unable to enjoy a historical fiction because historically a massive fucking chunk of cultures thought the idea of slavery was amazing, and there'll be at least some of that in the background of almost every historical piece that goes on, and, let's be honest, most of the people who'd be living in that area wouldn't think about slavery at all.

Truth be told, I'd find it hard not to laugh at a Victorian era MC whose author thought an easy way to make him relatable or likeable was to have him be appalled at the thought of kids sweeping chimneys.

[Neir]

topic = could x fall in love with y if y wasn't y

yes

[Seika]

Truth be told, I'd find it hard not to laugh at a Victorian era MC whose author thought an easy way to make him relatable or likeable was to have him be appalled at the thought of kids sweeping chimneys.

I mean, the Victorians passed significant legislation aimed specifically at getting kids out of lethal jobs and into compulsory schooling instead, so it's hardly like there was a total lack of people who preferred children not to go up the stacks. Half of Dickens' oeuvre is "being poor sucks, and especially for kids", ergo Oliver Twist.


Similarly, slavery, circa Alexander's time:

τοῖς δὲ παρὰ φύσιν τὸ δεσπόζειν （νόμῳ γὰρ τὸν μὲν δοῦλον εἶναι τὸν δ᾽ ἐλεύθερον, φύσει δ᾽ οὐθὲν διαφέρειν）: διόπερ οὐδὲ δίκαιον: βίαιον γάρ.
But, according to others, it is unnatural to own slaves - it is human law which makes one man a slave and another free, though they are no different naturally. Thus, it is unjust, being an imposition by force.

A scholiast provides a specific example in Alkidamas the Elean sophist, a pupil of Gorgias, speaking in his Messeniakos:

ἐλευθέρους ἀφῆκε πάντας θεός: οὐδένα δοῦλον ἡ φύσις πεποίηκεν
The God has sent forth all people in freedom; no-one’s nature has made them a slave.

[eddyak]

I mean, the Victorians passed significant legislation aimed specifically at getting kids out of lethal jobs and into compulsory schooling instead, so it's hardly like there was a total lack of people who preferred children not to go up the stacks. Half of Dickens' oeuvre is "being poor sucks, and especially for kids", ergo Oliver Twist.


Similarly, slavery, circa Alexander's time:


A scholiast provides a specific example in Alkidamas the Elean sophist, a pupil of Gorgias, speaking in his Messeniakos:

True enough, but both those examples were the accepted state of things for the majority of the time, if I'm not mistaken.

Most people reckon world hunger's a bad thing, but it's not as if there are droves of people offering up significant resources and volunteering to go abroad and build wells and modernise farms- nah, those are the real devoted ones. There's probably a very vocal minority of people in each age advocating their good cause.