Heaven's Feel Movies

[OverMaster]

Mordred did an okay job IIRC, but then it's impossible to tell how much help from others she had during that stint, and what were the exact conditions at the time working from a structure already placed by Artoria, and taking over for a short while is different from being the ruler for a long time.

And once Mordred's feelings and pride take over she pretty much drops most IQ points, at that point she still could function more maturely because she was more or less contented with her position. But the actual mark of maturity comes from dealing with adversity, almost anyone can act mature as long as things are going their way.

EDIT: To further clarify things, many DON'T act mature when things are going their way, but often that is a result of NOT wanting to be mature while on a good personal stride. Usually what those people need is a wakeup call, but the truly immature rarely learn when they receive one, for they will shift the blame on anyone else (Mordred's case) or resort to extreme self deprecation (I'm not worth anything!) as opposed to just assuming mistakes were made but you can learn from them and just do better next time (Artoria's case, as she thinks just erasing herself from history will magically fix everything when she probably can't even name a person she knew who would have done better than her, and ignoring that forces much wiser than her were the ones to deem her capable in the first place.)

[hayate]

Yeah, there's a saying that you should strive for perfection knowing full well you won't achieve it. Saber looked at it and said "Hold my Beer"

And then all her friends resented her for it.

Pretty much sums up Saber's kingship.

And with your permission, I would like this quote to be in my sig.

[forumghost]

Pretty much sums up Saber's kingship.

And with your permission, I would like this quote to be in my sig.

I mean sure, be my guest.

[Altima of the Gates]

Not really. In the myths and legends in which fate is a thing, it's consistently inescapable. Greek mythology being the most familiar example.

I guess, though if I did do some digging I bet I would find some author fiat that played with the rules a bit.

[warellis]

So is the Rin antagonism in HF presented differently compared to the VN?

[SpoonyViking]

I'm very well aware what hubris means, but I admit you've got me beat on how it's relevant to the discussion.

forumghost summed it up much better than I could.

[Deathhappens]

Not really. In the myths and legends in which fate is a thing, it's consistently inescapable. Greek mythology being the most familiar example.

Herc wrestled with Thanatos to spare the wife in a couple whose marriage he presided upon when she was bitten by a snake (I think Hera had sent it, but it's been a while). Orpheus nearly got Eurydice back from Hades with just his music. While the three Fates are part of Greek mythology, they very seldom have any actual presence in legends. Prophecies, of the self-fulfilling and otherwise kind, now those were ironclad, but they could still be fooled or otherwise 'overcome'. In one legend, the first person to step on Troy's soil would definitely die, so none of the Achaeans would jump off their ships. Along comes Odysseus, then, and throws his shield down, jumps on it, and lives just fine. Thus convinced the rest of the Achaeans jump off their ships as well and someone else dies as soon as his feet touch the ground (name escapes me). Overcoming, outsmarting or otherwise defying the inevitable was something Greek mythology heroes did a LOT of. If you're looking for the inevitability of Fate, I think you'd be better served looking towards Norse mythology, with its slow but inexorable grind towards Ragnarôk.

[Orivaa]

forumghost summed it up much better than I could.

And I don't see how anything forumghost said is relevant to the discussion either.

Are you being difficult on purpose?

Just quote me where they "summed it up" and then explain how or why it's relevant. If you're not going to explain your own "arguments," then I'd rather you concede the discussion and leave, instead of wasting my time, as it's annoying and tiresome to try and have a debate with someone who doesn't bring anything to the table.

TL;DR

Stop being obtuse.

[SpoonyViking]

I mean, do you really not see, or have you just not kept up with the discussion?

Yeah, there's a saying that you should strive for perfection knowing full well you won't achieve it. Saber looked at it and said "Hold my Beer"

Now establish a link between the concept of hubris and trying to rule fallible beings infallibly, while the ruler themselves are one such fallible being. I'm not arguing that's the novel's focus - in fact, it's exactly the opposite, in that it criticises Saber for sacrificing her humanity and asserts (through its main view point, that of the main character) that she had nothing to be ashamed of -, but crafting a narrative where such an attempt is framed as either excessive pride or a fundamental misunderstanding of human nature would be child's play. Hence my initial statement:

It can be a flaw, depending on how it's framed by the narrative.

- - - Updated - - -

To sum things up: read something other than VNs and LNs. Such a plot is like Storytelling 101.

[Deathhappens]

That was uncalled for, Spoony. And the matter here is one of obscurity of definition, again- does "being an excellent king/ruler/commander" mean you giving out excellent commands (that may or may not be obeyed), or does it mean you excel at giving commands such that they bring about the best possible result? Orivaa contends the latter, you and forumghost the former.


EDIT: Edited for clarity.

[SpoonyViking]

I'm actually not defending any one specific view point - hence why I was careful to omit myself from my statements and spoke in generalities.

[Orivaa]

I mean, do you really not see, or have you just not kept up with the discussion.

Ah, so you wanted me to go past his last, what, 3, replies, to the prior page, in order to find your argument for you. But hey, at least you didn't tell me to Google it.

He said

Yeah, there's a saying that you should strive for perfection knowing full well you won't achieve it.

This is true, and good advice in general. That statement frames it as being a good thing.
He then follows it up with

Saber looked at it and said "Hold my Beer"

This means to go further beyond or achieve something considered impossible.

He finished with

And then all her friends resented her for it.

All taken together, it would seem to be supporting my argument. Saber achieved perfection, as the ideal of a king, and everyone disliked her for it. But that dislike is from THEIR flaws. Their sense of inadequacy and jealousy. If I'm a really talented football player in high school, and all my teammates resent me purely on that basis, that is not a flaw in me. If the team then goes on to lose because everyone resents me, that's still not a flaw of mine, because you can't blame me for simply being good at the game. Now sure, if I also excelled at socializing, I might have been able to prevent it, but that's me making up for the flaws in others, not me negating a flaw of my own.
Now, I'm not saying Saber was perfect in every way, or even that she was a good king. She clearly lacked social skills, and if you want to consider that a flaw, be my guest. You can also argue that having social skills and understanding the minds of her subjects would be required for a perfect king, and yeah, I'd agree with that, BUT there are a lot of different interpretations of what it means to be the perfect king. However, both Saber AND her Round Table considered the ideal she upheld of a perfect king to be the correct interpretation, so that is the basis of our discussion. If you change it to, well, Saber wasn't really the perfect king, then the entire discussion becomes moot, because you can't argue whether or not Saber excelling was a character flaw if you're also arguing that she wasn't actually excelling in the first place.

but crafting a narrative where such an attempt is framed as either excessive pride or a fundamental misunderstanding of human nature would be child's play.

In which case the character flaw would be either the excessive pride or the misunderstanding of human nature. Not her excelling. Just because a narrative sets up a character trait or action to have negative consequences, it does not mean that the trait is automatically a flaw of the character. If you want to argue that, then the whole argument of character flaws becomes pointless, because you can change or shape the narrative in a way that can turn ANY trait, conventionally good or bad, into a flaw (or a virtue).

[Mcjon01]

The narrative that success is good is a lie perpetrated by your neoliberal puppetmasters; inequality is a sin in and of itself

[Orivaa]

Ew

[Altima of the Gates]

I think it goes beyond that though. A perfect person who makes the right decisions doesn't mean that they are nice or pleasant, it's doing their job.

You could make a lot of excuses if you stretched doing something for the greater good(forcing human testing when you need an unethically procured ingredient to cure a plague or sickness for example) or saying that you followed the letter of the law of the land when there are loopholes that exploit the weak and pillage the hardworking.
So from a cold objective standpoint people may say you made the right decision, kinda like how some will cry afterwards for the death of a "necessary" sacrifice but will rush the person to the gallows before their death.
So it's not always just someone being butthurt, it's sometimes rightful anger because people do unfairly get trampled in the guise of 'the right thing'.

[SpoonyViking]

[...] because you can change or shape the narrative in a way that can turn ANY trait, conventionally good or bad, into a flaw (or a virtue).

Well, duh.

[Rokudaime]

I think your example is plain wrong. The flaw isn't that he excels at killing people, the flaw is he's a psychopath. Try again.

You're also putting words in my mouth. I never said having certain talents is always a good thing. I said excelling can never be a flaw. Try again.

Said psychopath excels at killing people in sadistic ways, and causing harm. Killing people in sadistic ways is a character flaw (because even if it was necessary to kill people, there's no need to be cruel about it). Ergo, excelling at killing people in sadistic ways is also a flaw. And that was just an example anyway. The point is that excelling at something that has no merit, but only causes bad outcomes, or unnecessary harm etc, is just a flawed talent. Therefore excelling at something can be a flaw, though obviously it doesn't need to be.

And I never really put words in your mouth. Excelling at something and being talented at something is the exact same thing. Therefore saying that having certain talents is always a good thing (i.e, it cannot be a flaw), and saying that excelling can never be a flaw (i.e, it can never be a bad thing) is pretty much the same thing. If there is a difference, it's microscopic. Don't be pedantic.

I'm not trying to say that most talents/things people excel at are flaws or can be bad, the majority of them will obviously be positive talents, but like I said it's the generalization that excelling at something (again, it's the same as being talented at something) can never be a flaw that I'm opposed to, because it can be.

[Orivaa]

So it's not always just someone being butthurt, it's sometimes rightful anger because people do unfairly get trampled in the guise of 'the right thing'.

Which of the Round Table got trampled by Saber?

Said psychopath excels at killing people in sadistic ways, and causing harm. Killing people in sadistic ways is a character flaw (because even if it was necessary to kill people, there's no need to be cruel about it).

You're right. Killing people in sadistic ways is a character flaw (insofar as committing the act is a part of one's character). But that is the ACTION (tendency) being the flaw. NOT the excelling at it. It doesn't matter what vile thing you're amazing at. It could be raping infants whilst simultaneously roasting puppies and kittens on a stick. The flaw isn't being good at it, the flaw is in your tendency to do it. But you can have a character who's the best at the worst thing imaginable, and never, ever have the character do it.

The point is that excelling at something that has no merit, but only causes bad outcomes, or unnecessary harm etc, is just a flawed talent.

Whatever that means.

And I never really put words in your mouth. Excelling at something and being talented at something is the exact same thing. Therefore saying that having certain talents is always a good thing (i.e, it cannot be a flaw), and saying that excelling can never be a flaw (i.e, it can never be a bad thing) is pretty much the same thing. If there is a difference, it's microscopic. Don't be pedantic.

You're completely missing what I meant when I said you were putting words in my mouth. Obviously excelling at something and being talented is mostly the same thing, with the only difference being a measure of degree. The reason you're misunderstood me is that you're putting everything into either a camp of good or a camp of bad. Excelling at something can never be bad. However, that doesn't mean it's automatically good. It just means it's either good, or neutral. Excelling at killing people in horrific ways is not a flaw. But it's not good either. It just is. That is why you were putting words in my mouth, because you werepositing that I was arguing that talents of all kinds were inherently, always, without exception, good. Even though I never made the claim, ever, anywhere.

[Deathhappens]

I think it goes beyond that though. A perfect person who makes the right decisions doesn't mean that they are nice or pleasant, it's doing their job.You could make a lot of excuses if you stretched doing something for the greater good(forcing human testing when you need an unethically procured ingredient to cure a plague or sickness for example) or saying that you followed the letter of the law of the land when there are loopholes that exploit the weak and pillage the hardworking.So from a cold objective standpoint people may say you made the right decision, kinda like how some will cry afterwards for the death of a "necessary" sacrifice but will rush the person to the gallows before their death.So it's not always just someone being butthurt, it's sometimes rightful anger because people do unfairly get trampled in the guise of 'the right thing'.

If people are being unfairly sacrificed for it, then it's probably not really "the right thing".
I thought we learned that from Zero, human life is the one currency you can never properly balance on a scale. Every single one is infinitely precious.

edit: I swear to God BB I will burn you as soon as I get the chance stop eating my f***ing spaces.

[TomPen94]

It could be raping infants whilst simultaneously roasting puppies and kittens on a stick.

Holy crap man, easy there...

Cannot unsee...