Unpopular TM opinions you have

[SirGauoftheSquareTable]

Yeah Iskandar is kinda wierd because he’s sorta good naturedly yet inherently selfish at the same time. Like he has one wish and he will do anything to achieve and he has no qualms from just taking he desires. But at the same time he feels sympathy with people, he encourages them, make them feel like a better person. He can see the types of behaviors that hurt the people that follows them and thus try to stand against so they could change, and whould go out of his way saving people even if that would cripple the chances of his dream, like he did with only powering IH with his own mana or cutting his charge of Gordius Wheel short to save Waver. It’s kinda stuff like that which makes it hard to put Iskandar in one camp or another because really he shows examples of doing both at the same time.

Indeed. He's a really chill guy to hang out with and isn't an ass, but he does bad things, and his wish is horrifying when you give it even a little thought. I personally like him, but I'd never let him win. He's a lot like Cu in that regard, since Cu, while being an easy-going fellow, is still willing to murder defenseless women and children if ordered and generally doesn't think much of murder in general.

- - - Updated - - -

When I first watched Zero the banquet of kings left me with very conflicted feelings. Iskandar is a positive, optimistic character but I think people are confusing that with being a "good person." He wasn't meant to be a saint and wasn't written as one. His story of influencing Waver was where he got to shine, and why it ended as happy as it did. Waver's important here because Iskandar was meant to be the one to guide him.

I think the real problem with Iskander's speech, (and the reason he comes off as 'winning' the Debate) is because Saber's arguments against him are shot down and dismissed without discussion.

Like, he goes on this hammy rant and Saber is just like "B-b-b-but that meeeeaaaan". The narrative acts like she's being childish and her counterpoints are poor, when... no, she's actually right. So his arguments seem unopposed, because Saber is a strawman, and Gil isn't debating, he's just there to laugh at Saber and Alex.

And then we get the IH scene, where, well:




So yeah, the entire scene was framed to have Iskander 'win' the debate (which he does by basically shouting over the top of anyone that objects to him), it's what that scene was about really- to make Saber doubt herself. It's the first of the big moments leading up to her breakdown and the decision that the problem was her at the end of Zero.

Of course, if she'd stopped to think about it and realised that Iskander's army wasn't the Looney Tunes cast that the Knights of the Round were, she might not have felt so bad about it.

That is most certainly true. When I watched the Banquet of Kings, I could not help but wonder why Gen seemed to be poohpooing the idea of a king governing at the consent of the governed or existing for his people. As an American, that is a major part of my values, so I was shocked. Also, whatever problems there were with Saber's specific brand of kingship, those weren't adequately displayed.

[Iceblade44]

Indeed. He's a really chill guy to hang out with and isn't an ass, but he does bad things, and his wish is horrifying when you give it even a little thought. I personally like him, but I'd never let him win. He's a lot like Cu in that regard, since Cu, while being an easy-going fellow, is still willing to murder defenseless women and children if ordered and generally doesn't think much of murder in general.

- - - Updated - - -




That is most certainly true. When I watched the Banquet of Kings, I could not help but wonder why Gen seemed to be poohpooing the idea of a king governing at the consent of the governed or existing for his people. As an American, that is a major part of my values, so I was shocked. Also, whatever problems there were with Saber's specific brand of kingship, those weren't adequately displayed.

yeah the Banquet didn’t really express what was the problem in the way it intends, like it’s not the general idea of how Artoria governs is wrong, it’s how extreme she takes it even when she’s supposed to be died along with everyone else that matters. Except the problem is the people trying to point that aren’t really the type of people you’d like to listen to since they are also from the past with different values. So you get mixed results.

[SirGauoftheSquareTable]

When I first watched Zero the banquet of kings left me with very conflicted feelings. Iskandar is a positive, optimistic character but I think people are confusing that with being a "good person." He wasn't meant to be a saint and wasn't written as one. His story of influencing Waver was where he got to shine, and why it ended as happy as it did. Waver's important here because Iskandar was meant to be the one to guide him.

yeah the Banquet didn’t really express what was the problem in the way it intends, like it’s not the general idea of how Artoria governs is wrong, it’s how extreme she takes it even when she’s supposed to be died along with everyone else that matters. Except the problem is the people trying to point that aren’t really the type of people you’d like to listen to since they are also from the past with different values. So you get mixed results.

Iskandar had a semi-point, but personally reflecting on it, I don't think he actually won, even if he "won".

That, and despite his moral ambiguity, he did positively influence more people, helping Waver grow up and spurring both him and Taiga to teach, than Artoria did.

[Iceblade44]

Iskandar had a semi-point, but personally reflecting on it, I don't think he actually won, even if he "won".

That, and despite his moral ambiguity, he did positively influence more people, helping Waver grow up and spurring both him and Taiga to teach, than Artoria did.

I don’t know, because to himself he felt like he won. Taking your examples of helping people, that’s pretty much how his kingship works. He believes that being true to yourself and desires can inspire people to follow you and emulate you, and seeing the cases of Waver and a little bit Taiga, it works.

Also so didn’t the whole situation came about from Iskandar stealing one of Neko’s wine barrels from her shop? Yeah the thing about his selfish actions is that even when he goes around being selfish he most often helps people then not.

[SirGauoftheSquareTable]

I don’t know, because to himself he felt like he won. Taking your examples of helping people, that’s pretty much how his kingship works. He believes that being true to yourself and desires can inspire people to follow you and emulate you, and seeing the cases of Waver and a little bit Taiga, it works.

Also so didn’t the whole situation came about from Iskandar stealing one of Neko’s wine barrels from her shop? Yeah the thing about his selfish actions is that even when he goes around being selfish he most often helps people then not.

The "won" in quotation marks was referring to he himself feeling like he won, but I don't think he actually won because as forumghost showed, he never actually did more than shout down Saber and Saber couldn't muster any cogent arguments.

Also, I'm not disagreeing with you regarding his selfish actions ultimately helping people, but it's not like that's his primary goal, but a happy accident. I will admit that he is able to bring the best out of people with his style of kingship, something Saber manifestly failed at.

[warellis]

Why was Alexander portrayed so positively by Gen? Is it because he could be used as essentially an OC donut steel-style of character for him to shit on others?

[jennajayfeather]

Why was Alexander portrayed so positively by Gen? Is it because he could be used as essentially an OC donut steel-style of character for him to shit on others?

I think it's because of Waver & the tone he wanted for the duo.

[SeiKeo]

"At its end, the readers who witness Saber whimpering, will be so overwhelmed by anger and sadness that they will rip the last volume and go impulsively reinstall "Fate/stay night" and then they won’t be able to stop until they watch as Saber gains her salvation. That’s the conclusion I want to write."

[warellis]

"At its end, the readers who witness Saber whimpering, will be so overwhelmed by anger and sadness that they will rip the last volume and go impulsively reinstall "Fate/stay night" and then they won’t be able to stop until they watch as Saber gains her salvation. That’s the conclusion I want to write."

Did belittling Saber require Alexander to be embiggened?

[I3uster]

Why was Alexander portrayed so positively by Gen? Is it because he could be used as essentially an OC donut steel-style of character for him to shit on others?

why do people accuse evidently at least competent writers of doing this

hes not writing fanfiction

[SirGauoftheSquareTable]

Upon looking at his real self, he wasn't THAT enlarged. His problems just weren't mentioned as much, and even when Saber told him how his kingdom fell apart after his death, he just simply shrugged and laughed.

[warellis]

why do people accuse evidently at least competent writers of doing this

hes not writing fanfiction

When you change a character from an already established work into a strawman, and have your introduced character shoot down their objections in cheap ways or have said strawman react in ways that don't fit their characterization in previous works, I'd say it counts as a form of bashing.

Like what a fanfic writer does.

[Iceblade44]

The "won" in quotation marks was referring to he himself feeling like he won, but I don't think he actually won because as forumghost showed, he never actually did more than shout down Saber and Saber couldn't muster any cogent arguments.

Also, I'm not disagreeing with you regarding his selfish actions ultimately helping people, but it's not like that's his primary goal, but a happy accident. I will admit that he is able to bring the best out of people with his style of kingship, something Saber manifestly failed at.

Ah for the arguement part, reading over it I don’t think Artoria didn’t express her points fully or at least she tried to. She did explained why she felt like she did, it was more of a disagreement on the inherent values. She herself lampshades that they can’t come into an agreement because he’s a king who stirs wars while she’s one that quells it. Well that’s what I say but you do have a point, that Artoria isn’t really providing a backing to her argument, but really that’s kinda the point. in that really Artoria actually doesn’t fully believe in the way of how she ruled despite what she says, we know that because if she did she wouldn’t have her wish to save Camelot in the first place. The moment she becomes in awe and weak to him though is when Iskandar uses Ioniol Hetairoi, because to her that represents something she always tried to succeed but failed, it is his pride and it is why she becomes in doubt. She is envious because of his confidence in himself and his kingship. The crux of the argument can probably be seen in the end of the book by Saber herself.

”As long as the battle could be won, and the administration just, then I was a perfect king. Therefore, I wanted no understanding. Even if people thought I was arrogant and lonesome, I suppose that’s also the rightful expression of the king.
But why – why am I unable to be proud of my own beliefs like Rider?

so Sabers problem here isn’t that her way of ruling is wrong, she was the perfect king. She’s just not satisfied with her own way of ruling, something she doesn’t become until the end of Fate route. So she lost that arguement not because how she ruled wasn’t right, it’s that she doesn’t have confidence in herself to say that it was the best their could have been. Her whole thing is that she believed that there was a better way of going about it, that how she did it wasn’t adequate enough. So you can’t really argue that your the better king when you yourself don’t believe that. So you see why Artoria lost? Because she did, just not in the way that’s apparent at first glance.

[Zurvan]

Saber lost that argument before even entering it
If you listen to what Rider's saying and acting you'll realise that this is a p horrible king, albeit a charismatic king
All had flaws, none were perfect kings

what else are you guys arguing

[Iceblade44]

Upon looking at his real self, he wasn't THAT enlarged. His problems just weren't mentioned as much, and even when Saber told him how his kingdom fell apart after his death, he just simply shrugged and laughed.

Not really, he didn’t shrug and laugh about his kingdoms fate, he accepted it. Iskandar fully believes his way of kingship to be right, so if he’s in the right and his kingdom still falls apart then that is just how the dice rolls. What can he do to fix that if he fully believes he did as much as he could? Thus he accepts what happened, mourns and moves on. It’s tragic but it’s just how the world works. That’s why he’s so set off against Saber.

Also it’s not like he didn’t reflect on his death and what it brought. It’s because of that he tries to protect Waver, since he doesn’t want him to suffer by following him for unfounded wishes which what happened to his soldiers.

- - - Updated - - -

When you change a character from an already established work into a strawman, and have your introduced character shoot down their objections in cheap ways or have said strawman react in ways that don't fit their characterization in previous works, I'd say it counts as a form of bashing.

Like what a fanfic writer does.

But that’s what Nasu wanted though? I mean listen to Nasu on this

Urobuchi -“Speaking of, what is the fourth war about?”
Nasu - “Hum – Saber getting bullied by Gilgamesh and Alexander!”
I answered unceremoniously.
In my mind, there are two main points in the fourth Heaven’s Feel.
One is Saber’s setback.
King Arthur, who ruled her people as the model human. The selfless and devoted, just and uncorrupted Artoria.
The absolute commander who surpassed mortals, the majestic Gilgamesh.
And the extravert king whom some called a tyrant, but still held his belief that he’ll bring his people to happiness. The King of Conquerors, Alexander, who ruled the world as a man.
Using the intensive conflict between the three to unravel Saber’s story in Zero

Everything that happened to Saber is what Nasu intended. He was not asking Uro to right about Saber that was in Stay Night, he wanted him to write about the Saber that would lead to the one in Stay Night. That is the full intention, Uro isn’t changing Saber just because, he’s changing because that’s literally what he was hired to do.

[Deathhappens]

Was it?

δίκαια μὲν ἐν τῷ ἀνθρωπείῳ λόγῳ ἀπὸ τῆς ἴσης ἀνάγκης κρίνεται, δυνατὰ δὲ οἱ προύχοντες πράσσουσι καὶ οἱ ἀσθενεῖς ξυγχωροῦσιν.

ἧι μὲν δὴ νομίζομέν γε, χρήσιμον μὴ καταλύειν ὑμᾶς τὸ κοινὸν ἀγαθόν, ἀλλὰ τῷ αἰεὶ ἐν κινδύνῳ γιγνομένῳ εἶναι τὰ εἰκότα καὶ δίκαια.

ὅμως δὲ πιστεύομεν τῇ μὲν τύχῃ ἐκ τοῦ θείου μὴ ἐλασσώσεσθαι, ὅτι ὅσιοι πρὸς οὐ δικαίους ἱστάμεθα.

Even the Athenians at the height of their Thucydidean imperial arrogance concede that their might doesn't make right; just that it makes them win.

Yet Aristotle (allegedly) said "War is the school of virtue". Πόλεμος γαρ σχολείον αρετής εστί. We know his relationship to Alexander.

Heracleitus definitely said "War is the father and king of all; some it makes slaves, some freemen, some it makes gods, others men". "Πόλεμος πάντων δε πατηρ εστί, πάντων δε βασιλεύς, και τους μεν θεοὺς έδειξε. τοὺς δε ανθρώπους, τους μεν δούλους εποίησε, τους δε ελευθέρους".
The Athenians, by far the most advanced city-state in Greece in terms of philosophy and free thought, at best acknowledged the difference between enforcing your will by force of arms and said will being "just". This excerpt in particular comes from the "dialogue" between the Athenians and the Milesians, whereby the former were trying to convince the latter to join the Athenian alliance while their fleet and armed forces were already on the island. It was by far one of the most egregious cases of "might makes right" in the Pelloponesian War.

- - - Updated - - -

We're not talking about Leonidas because whataboutism is a logical fallacy.

We can hardly throw salt on Seika's claims when her source fu has consistently proven so strong. She's citing the exact moments he expounds upon his tyrannical way of doing things.

The reason I bring up Leonidas is to highlight that your arguments stem more from emotional involvement (i.e. because you don't like the character) than from rational thought. And strawman arguments are also logical fallacies, since you brought it up: I am clearly attacking Seika's interpretation of the source at hand, not the validity of the source itself.

- - - Updated - - -

Because he's not the topic of the discussion, nor one of the main characters in a narrative which (at least its animated adaptation) frames him in a positive light.



Is it? "Hey, you proud heroes who accepted being summoned specifically because you have a wish to fulfill, want to drop everything and serve me?" Such effort at captivating them, much wow.

Ok, now you're just pushing goalposts. Also, see my answer to Imperial above.

[SirGauoftheSquareTable]

Not really, he didn’t shrug and laugh about his kingdoms fate, he accepted it. Iskandar fully believes his way of kingship to be right, so if he’s in the right and his kingdom still falls apart then that is just how the dice rolls. What can he do to fix that if he fully believes he did as much as he could? Thus he accepts what happened, mourns and moves on. It’s tragic but it’s just how the world works. That’s why he’s so set off against Saber.

Also it’s not like he didn’t reflect on his death and what it brought. It’s because of that he tries to protect Waver, since he doesn’t want him to suffer by following him for unfounded wishes which what happened to his soldiers.

- - - Updated - - -



But that’s what Nasu wanted though? I mean listen to Nasu on this


Everything that happened to Saber is what Nasu intended. He was not asking Uro to right about Saber that was in Stay Night, he wanted him to write about the Saber that would lead to the one in Stay Night. That is the full intention, Uro isn’t changing Saber just because, he’s changing because that’s literally what he was hired to do.

Huh. Yeah, I guess Rider makes sense now. Besides, the bit about Saber is what I've thought from the beginning, so thanks for actually confirming it.

[Deathhappens]

Saber lost that argument before even entering it
If you listen to what Rider's saying and acting you'll realise that this is a p horrible king, albeit a charismatic king
All had flaws, none were perfect kings

what else are you guys arguing

Semantics.

[Toa of Gallifrey]

Hot take: it's not the author's duty to spell out what the reader/viewer should think

[Imperial]

The reason I bring up Leonidas is to highlight that your arguments stem more from emotional involvement (i.e. because you don't like the character) than from rational thought. And strawman arguments are also logical fallacies, since you brought it up: I am clearly attacking Seika's interpretation of the source at hand, not the validity of the source itself.

I do like the character.

Alexander is an incredibly fun character to watch, and he brings to the table a pretty fascinating world view, even if I don't agree with it. By the same token, Gilgamesh and Kirei come up just behind Shirou as my favorite Fate characters, but that doesn't make them any less monstrous.

I don't dislike Alexander as a fictional character. He's entertaining. I am disturbed by the real-world implications of people being okay with what he had to say because he said it in a magnetic way. It's nothing new, of course. Plenty of charismatic con men rose to power and drove the world to war to satisfy their appetites.