Funny how Saber only pushes that when written under Urobuchi.Originally Posted by Deathhappens
Funny how Saber only pushes that when written under Urobuchi.
Didn't she have a bit of it with Assassin?
Not to defend gen and all but there was that time saber nearly gave up her true name to meet her knightly code.
And yes that was with Kojiro, he just stopped her before she could.
"Only in my company, will you not be a monster"
anywhere than here
I don't know why people keep bashing Gen's writing of Saber when it's clearly NOT supposed to be the Saber from FSN but the Saber beforehand. Just, please.
Because a lot of it doesn't make sense when you look at her backstory and how ruthless she acted there. And it doesn't help that it smacks of an author doing official bashing essentially. The kind of thing shitty fanfic writers are more known for.
Also considering it was like a week or two for Saber, in-between summonings, the changeover to FSN Saber would feel a bit rushed I'd say.
That's explained the novel itself though. The reason Arturia is so desperate to see the Grail War as an honorable battlefield is because she hoped it would be something better than the brutal wars she knew in life. Also, I don't think Gen ever intended it to be character-bashing. He even said that the intent was for readers to sympathize with Saber so much that they'd rush to play F/SN and see her get a happy ending.
I personally don't think Saber is super bashed in the first place, and about her insistence on honor despite her ruthless backstory, it's actually BECAUSE she was forced to do ruthless things to save Britain in her backstory that she desperately wants a second chance to do things with honor and proudly duel other knights and warriors like she never got the chance to do.
Gen went on a limb is say that both Artoria and Diarmuid acted out from the way from the way they’d usually conduct themselves for the entirety of the war because they happened to face each other early on. Kind of a strange justification when you think about it.
BL Character Defining Lines
That’s the justification yes. But when you look at Uro’s tendencies and writing it only seems like an attempt to excuse the way he wants to write Saber rather than something actually born of Artie’s story and personality.
If by "funny" you mean "something that isn't remotely true" then sure.
I don't know why people act like it's some great and improbable leap of character when it's obvious every time she opens her mouth that chivalry forms a core tenet of her being. She's King Arthur and her title is the King of Knights, for fuck's sake. If anything, her pragmatism in F/SN (which isn't nearly as pronounced as people seem to remember either; she had the time of her life dueling both Cu and Kojirou) would be an aftereffect of her being exposed to Kiritsugu's way of doing things.
One wonders how she would've developed if she had someone like Dan as a Master instead.
shit BL says
Once and always and nevermore.
I thought that was more for Diarmuid than Artoria because Gen said specifically for Diarmuid that as long as he was convinced the war was dirty business and never met Saber, hit-and-run is the ideal and Lancer plays no games.
- - - Updated - - -
And by the "way he wants", did you mean doing exactly as Nasu said? Because Nasu was very involved in writing Zero Saber, and Deathhappens already mentioned the chivalry as a core part of the King of Knights thing, so I don't need to mention that.
- - - Updated - - -
Both she and Diarmuid would have really liked having Dan as a Master, but Saber wouldn't have grown without first being knocked down by Kiritsugu and later built up by Shirou and/or Rin.
Was she especially ruthless though, this always bugged me. Because while when they discuss her backstory in FSN it made it seem so, but in actually it really wasn't. No one objected with how she ruled, no one believed her to be a tyrant, she was a perfect king, the perfect king. No where does it make it seem that her rule was in anyway ruthless. We are having the image in that she's brutally pragmatic in how she does things, but she isn't that. She is King Arthur, a king who is an ideal of what a king should be. If your telling me that King Arthur isn't supposed to be a paragon of chivalry I don't know what to say.
"Only in my company, will you not be a monster"
anywhere than here
I thought people objected to her being TOO perfect and unable to empathize with humans because of that perfection, so perhaps they thought she was a tad ruthless.
I thought she was considered ruthless for having to burn down her own villages and such to deny the Saxons resources?
No, that was just a natural consequence of war.
People just didn't have a clue how to relate to a king that was completely impartial. It'd be like having a robot as a boss, not really understanding why you wanted time off with the girlfriend instead of being at work, not showing any signs as to whether you did a good job or not, just beep boop your next task.
FGO Supports
Essentially when they talk about the king not understanding human emotion, specifically what they are referring to is failure. To err is human. But saber never did. Her tax policy was flawless, her legal system was perfectly just, her art of war was both noble and effective.
Saber never had to clean up her own mistakes because she didn’t have any, either as a knight or a king, which frustrated the other knights because she made them feel bad about themselves
Just like a certain Chinese emperor
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.
That's not exactly true. If she made no mistakes in her governance, there wouldn't have been so many malcontents for Mordred to make into an army, and if her military strategy was flawless needless to say she wouldn't have died the way she did. Rather, her problem was that she believed that in order to be a good king she had to be inhuman. She didn't indulge in any vice. She showed no favouritism, even when her very best friends were brought before her. She literally didn't even display her emotions openly. That's why people called her inhuman- because she was doing her level best to appear that way.
- - - Updated - - -
Now, a part of that could be ascribed to jealousy- because by her efforts and Merlin's guidance behind the throne she WAS largely successful, and her personal prowess was unquestioned- remember, this was a king so holy and pure he didn't even age- but a not-insignificant number of her people were likely just scared of this unfeeling automaton of a king.
shit BL says
Once and always and nevermore.
That whole saber doesn’t know failure bit is not my interpretation, it’s lifted straight from GoA.
the reason Lancelot and the other’s resented her was because they made mistakes and she didn’t.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
NA
JP
