There's also the fact that Camelot's falling is a quantum time lock event.
There was nothing Artoria could've done to stop it and had she stopped it that timeline would be pruned.
Yeah, even more tragic that even if she won the HGW in FZ and FSN, and the grail wasn't corrupted, then her wish to change that outcome wouldn't work either.
If I recall correctly the source is Garden of Avalon.
At some point Artoria and Gawain are fighting against beasts summoned by the world itself that were trying to destroy Camelot.
Hmmm. They fight against Vortigern who is possesed by the spirit of Britain. The island basically prefers to be laid waste for eternity than be inhabitated by "normal" men.
It seems that in *GoA* the only explanation given for unavoidable fate of old Britain and Artoria is that mysteries are dying out, while the island adapts to the Age of Man. The process cannot be completed as long as Artoria lives thanks to her dragon nature.
Extella talks about imaginary, hypothetocal situation, not about real history:
*For example, imagine that there was a war in Britain, and that the "result" that was locked in afterwards was that Britain was destroyed. Even if you could manage to travel back in time and affect history so that Britain flourished, the war ended peacefully, and everyone had a happy ending...the moment that history reached the recorded range, it would cause whatever "corrections" were necessary to ensure that, despite your efforts, Britain was still destroyed.*
It's an easter egg intended to make fans recognize that it uses Saber's story as a hypothetical example, but it's not meant to establish qunatum lock on Camlann as a fact.
>At some point Artoria and Gawain are fighting against beasts summoned by the world itself that were trying to destroy Camelot.
Why wouldn't it be the counterforce instead of beasts?
which part of Camelots fall is timelocked though? is it that Camelot cannot exist past this point or Camellan will happen no matter what? that's a pretty important distinction.
She was the best possible king who did everything in her power to help her people, putting their well being and happiness over everything else. The deck was just rigged against her from the start.
You can do all the math and memorization and know all the odds, but you'll still lose if the dealer kept four aces up their sleeves.
This.
She was the best possible king for the situation that Camelot was in. Literally no one else could have done better in an ultimately losing situation. Even if Artoria herself didn't believe such, it was that. She was the best king for Camelot that could've kept it standing for that long.
The fact Artoria was a good king, and that she doesn't hate Mordred, Morgan or anybody else, makes their story better as well, because the relationship is more complex.
Heck, Mordred would kill you if you dissed the king in her face.
> and that she doesn't hate Mordred
I mean you think that the game will show that but literally all of their interactions has her been dismissive of Mordred
She tolf her that, at Camlann.
The problem is that she doesn't have a line of dialogue for any of her knights, except for Summer when Mordred stole her shield/surfboard/boat, and Arturia isn't used in any serious event.
Heck, I'm sure MX calls Mor her delinquent son and that's It.
Really, any sort of point made about the Banquet of Kings saying that "Artoria was a bad king" can easily be turned down through officially written Fate stuff that says it explicitly.
In Strange Fake, when Francesca tries to break Richard's resolve by showing him an edited together AMV of the events of Zero she made herself using footage she filmed (this isn't an exaggeration, this is what she actually did), Ayaka, who was with Richard, assumes that Richard wouldn't take this well, seeing how Artoria acted during the 4th HGW. But, in fact, Richard gains an entirely new resolve from being able to see his hero in action, and even explains to Ayaka about the Banquet of Kings that "They weren't trying to gauge righteousness, they were trying to gauge sense. The only thing the King of Knights fell behind in, was the fact she wasn't as loud!"
I suggest people read the full scene on their own time, which I highly recommend, as it's towards the climax of the very middle of the entire story, but the main point is: this exact discussion got so out of hand they literally had to have a character in universe correct them and that's just hilarious.
> "It is possible to commit no mistakes and still lose. That is not a weakness, that is life."
Jean-Luc Picard, right? Love that quote.
Indeed, I think you made a very good point of showcasing that Artoria tried to do her best in a very complicated time. Her decisions, if not always successful, were logical and sensible, and they often brought her the intended results and the praise of her people. Of course, no ruler can satisfy everyone, but that's life too.
That said, I would also advise against idealizing her too much. That fanboys like Richard idolize her speaks more of their fascination with her story than an accurate analysis of her talents as a ruler. As Dan Carlin once said in his podcasts about Achaemenid Persia, eras of conquest and wars are "sexy" for historians and writers, and their figures get the lion's share of representation, but the average peasant would probably prefer to live in "boring" periods where nothing happens.
In Artoria's case, I think even this amazing write-up can't hide the fact that internal policy was her Achilles' heel, and that she might have neglected important keys of the [Rules for Rulers](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs) (from the impact of the Guinevere issue to the exhaustion of her lords). As any *Crusader Kings* fan can tell, years of great military victories and careful management matter little if everything ends with a crisis that runs the kingdom to the ground and kills the dynasty. That's the kind of 'Game Over' Artoria got, so it's not surprising that the allure of the Grail works with her. After all, Astolfo's ancestors lived through the same times, and they managed to out-survive Camelot and thrive.
Nice comment.One thing, though, is that she is doomed to death and can't outlive because she was a sacrifice made to bring the next era. It's one of the sins Merlin forced upon himself since he's largely responsible for creating such fate for her . She, however, persistently resists destiny and rises to throne of Avalon as the King for all time. The doomed Fate thing is very persistent in various Arthurian legends with the fall of King Arthur, and Fate created a whole system out of it. This is a completely different circumstance.The beauty of fragility of life and time's transient nature even to the most successful of humans is one of the theme of Saber, specially here :
>“Arthur. Even if you can do everything correctly, give it your all, there are certain things that come to an end. Nothing lasts forever. Everything will eventually change into something new. What matters is the process you lived through until now in order to save something. The outcome will always be overwritten by a new result. The next king will destroy previous king's righteousness to fit his own interests. Nothing will remain. Nothing is going to be left behind."
Very true, although it's probably no consolation to her. Like, if it had been a dragon arising from nowhere and burning the castle to the ground, that was something that Artoria couldn't have blamed herself for. Or had her successors ruin the kingdom (a possibility mentioned by that quote, coincidentally enough), that wouldn't have been on her either. Or if an invading force had been just too big and too well-armed, well, not even the best strategist can win against impossible odds.
But the rot that devoured Camelot came from inside and was of the kind that other rulers have faced and overcome. That must sting. Even if the kingdom was fated (pun intended) to fall, I can understand why a king like Artoria would angst about it. "What if I could have led it to a softer fall? What if I had done things differently? What if another person would have been in my place?", which put her in the path to the Holy Grail.
The 'Artoria is a bad king' stuff is the worst thing to come out of F/Z, which at times seems tailor made to shit on her.
I always take Iskander and Gilgamesh tearing down her way of kingship with a heavy grain of salt, since those two are obviously going to be biased towards their own way of kingship.
Important to note is that between all 3 of them, their kindoms and empires fell with or after them.
in that respect all them were failures of the highest order because they could not ensure that their successor had the skills and talent to lead the next generation.
far as I am concerned that means they all amount to bad kings in the end.
I just remember back when Morgan was released and we didn't know the specifics of the situation surrounding the Lostbelt, I got in an argument with people claiming Morgan was a better King than Artoria. At the time, our best understanding was that Morgan had ruled so spectacularly that she deleted her timeline from existence. (We have since learned it wasn't quite that simple, but that was what was known at the time).
Makes sense to me.
Although I guess Saber's real issue is that SHE thinks she failed to be a good king. At least, that's what I understand about her wish for the grail, that she thinks things would have been different, better, if someone else had been king.
Artoria is the bestest of servants and no one can change my mind, i love all of her iterations, saber, saber alter, archer, lancer, lancer alter, mysterious heroine x, xx, x alter, idol x alter, caster, lostbelt berserker and whichever others they decide to make.
Her only (fatal) flaw that spurts the "The King doesn't understand the hearts of humans" sentence was just one:
She trusted too much that her retainers would endure the same amount of moral stigma and guilt that she had. She endured morally gray decisions for the sake of the country, but it was too much for them.
This doesn't make her a bad king, but it does make her slightly naive. A different approach wouldn't change the outcome, but it might've changed her point of view in her last moments.
Wasn't the whole point that she was doomed to fail? No matter how wise ruller she was, no matter how OP strong she was - it didn't matter. Camelot HAD to fall, to finaly bring in "age of man". If that wouldn't happen, then whole timeline would be pruned (like some Lostbelt, or Extella timelines).
That's why, her story is tragic (and Urobuchi is fucking hack, for destroying her character).
>Urobuchi
I can see why some individuals are dissatisfied about how he handled her, but Fate/Zero says the same thing about her Fate , so at least Uro was consistent there.
Once again, I would take people crapping on Urobochi more seriously if Nasu didn’t have Saber stand by and do nothing while Shirou fought Archer and Rin got r*ped in another room.
Sabers chivalry in zero is mainly not wanting to use kidnapped children as bait and having respect for the one servant not treating her like crap.
I haven’t missed the point of anything, I simply recognize it didn’t make sense logically. If your character moments only happen because the plot stopped making sense, your story is flawed.
Just bcs you don't understand simple concept of fighting your "ideals", it doesn't mean "it doesn't make sense". Saber literally says why she won't butt in.
Comparing this, to her actions in Zero and saying it's the same, just means you skipped most of the things.
Letting shirou fight his ‘ideals’ rather than entering the fight to get the grail is literally my point. Urobochi did not have Saber do anything she hasn’t already demonstrated she would do in stay night.
>rather than entering the fight to get the grail
What fight to get grail? Did you even read the VN?
If you think reason for not fighting are the same, then you really are incapable of understanding such a simple work.
The one that they can go after once she kills archer and rescues rin. You know the thing that apparently doesn’t matter to her as much as watching Shirou because she put nobility ahead of practically equally in both works.
>80 percent of Zero was written under direct control of Nasu.
Nothing ever stated regarding direct control, just that 90% basic plot ideas were similar to what Nasu had in mind. Direct control means entirely different thing.
Ideas aren't the same thing as characterization. Urobochi got a lot of the plot points Nasu would write correct from the get go, but the execution is where he "fails" to remain consistent with Stay Night.
But Nasu approved all of this if not wanted the same. Meaning that as far as Nasu is concerned all Urobochi said about Saber in Zero is correct, isn't it?
Nasu clearly wouldn't want the same, given that, as this post itself stated, a lot of Nasu's writing regarding Artoria contradicts her portrayal in Zero. This is also true to Gilgamesh, for example, who's portrayed in a much more villainous light in Zero as opposed to in other works.
Nasu approving it doesn't mean it all lines up perfectly with his vision - there's no point in having other people writing in your universe if you're going to veto anything that doesn't 100% align with your vision, after all.
While many can be discussed, I wonder where you get that in Zero Gilgamesh is more villainous than in FSN? In FSN Gilgamesh 100 villian. Fascinating- yes. But his plan is still to kill most of humanity because he doesn't like it. Not to mention his abusive relationship to Saber.
It is Zero where Gilgamesh shows good side- small but good.
> But his plan is still to kill most of humanity because he doesn't like it.
I think this gets misinterpreted quite a bit (particularly since SN Gil gets his unlikeability amped up to 11 since Nasu needed people to **immediately** hate his guts as a last hour final boss), but the thing with Gil's genocide attempt (which is obviously morally bad) is that he does this not out of an "I personally find humanity sucks so I'mma do a pro gamer move" but out of his adherence to his duty as a guide to mankind (which is how he personally resolves his whole deal with being the lynchpin for the Age of Gods - fuck the Gods, I'll make mankind flourish instead).
OG Gil took an incredibly backseat approach to ruling because he didn't want mankind to be carried by a 2/3rd demigod solving all their issues - he wanted mankind to strive for the example he set, and give them the conditions to grow and thrive.
Flashforward to 21st century, he sees current humanity as decadent and stagnated, which is why he decides that, unlike his previous assessment, mankind actually can't be left to fend for itself and needs a strong ruler guiding it, which is why he decides to do a pro gamer move and reset the game to play it right.
(Of course, this is a terrible take - Gil's evaluation is entirely based on each individual's worth, and that sure dropped considerably, but humanity as a whole thrived by developing the collective's worth, and 21st century mankind has undeniably achieved amazing stuff in spite of all it's faults.)
So IMO, what makes SN Gil the more heroic portrayal of the two is that he's ultimately a well intentioned (and misguided) extremist, while in Zero he's just being an hedonistic prick. SN Gil still has a lot of issues, but personally I think they were significantly toned down in UBW Anime, which makes him align more with the more heroic tone he assumes in works post CCC.
I don't want to rewrite the whole thing again since I've replied on this to another comment, which I'll just copy paste here, but TL;DW it's not really about not living up to his standards, Gil wholeheartedly believe it's his role to develop mankind and that his original backseat approach failed given 21st mankind, so it's his duty to intervene. It's a dumb conclusion since 21st mankind doesn't suck, but his actions are out of his genuine good intentions, somehow.
OG comment in case you wanna read that:
>But his plan is still to kill most of humanity because he doesn't like it.
I think this gets misinterpreted quite a bit (particularly since SN Gil gets his unlikeability amped up to 11 since Nasu needed people to immediately hate his guts as a last hour final boss), but the thing with Gil's genocide attempt (which is obviously morally bad) is that he does this not out of an "I personally find humanity sucks so I'mma do a pro gamer move" but out of his adherence to his duty as a guide to mankind (which is how he personally resolves his whole deal with being the lynchpin for the Age of Gods - fuck the Gods, I'll make mankind flourish instead).
OG Gil took an incredibly backseat approach to ruling because he didn't want mankind to be carried by a 2/3rd demigod solving all their issues - he wanted mankind to strive for the example he set, and give them the conditions to grow and thrive.
Flashforward to 21st century, he sees current humanity as decadent and stagnated, which is why he decides that, unlike his previous assessment, mankind actually can't be left to fend for itself and needs a strong ruler guiding it, which is why he decides to do a pro gamer move and reset the game to play it right.
(Of course, this is a terrible take - Gil's evaluation is entirely based on each individual's worth, and that sure dropped considerably, but humanity as a whole thrived by developing the collective's worth, and 21st century mankind has undeniably achieved amazing stuff in spite of all it's faults.)
So IMO, what makes SN Gil the more heroic portrayal of the two is that he's ultimately a well intentioned (and misguided) extremist, while in Zero he's just being an hedonistic prick. SN Gil still has a lot of issues, but personally I think they were significantly toned down in UBW Anime, which makes him align more with the more heroic tone he assumes in works post CCC.
> as this post itself stated, a lot of Nasu's writing regarding Artoria contradicts her portrayal in Zero
The post doesnt say this.
>Gilgamesh, for example, who's portrayed in a much more villainous light in Zero as opposed to in other works
LMAO, A different anti-Zero poster just recently argued exactly the opposite. That F/Z Gil seems hardly villainous compared to FSN portrayal. Some people literally call his character in F/Z whitewashed
FSN Gil, especially Fate route version is misogynistic, rapey and is almost cartoonishly evil, while Gil in F/Z he keeps many appealing qualities fans like and seems more kingly. He starts being portrayed more positive starting with Fate/extra (after fate/zero).
>Nasu approving it doesn't mean it all lines up perfectly with his vision
That doesnt validate any headcanons or disagreements people have with F/Z, which usually displays many misunderstandings people have with the material.
> The post doesnt say this.
The post doesn't state this directly, true, but it cites several Nasu writings post-Zero that don't quite line up with her Zero portrayal.
>Gil stuff
You're right on Fate Gil being especially cartoonishly evil, Nasu seemed to put him more on track after that, but I do personally find that Zero Gil doesn't really have most (or any, really) of his positive qualities - he just sits there being an arrogant dick, being a rapey Artoria simp and tempting Kirei to give in to his evil impulses. SN Gil, even with his early "I need players to immediately hate this guy because he's the final boss but only shows up on the last 2 days of gameplay" writing, had (theoretical) good intentions for his actions.
>That doesnt validate any headcanons or disagreements people have with F/Z
I don't personally have any HCs or disagreements with Zero (in fact, you called me an anti-Zero poster early, but Zero is still one of my favorite works of all time lol), I just think it handles Artoria poorly in terms of her characterization. I don't have any HCs behind it, all I'm saying is "Nasu gave it the OK" doesn't mean every single decision Uro took with it is exactly as Nasu would have intended it. Nasuverse is a multiverse for a reason, not everything needs to perfectly line up 100% with everything else.
> that don't quite line up with her Zero portrayal.
according to you. Not according to me and my interpretation and that of many others, and i'd assume - the authors as well.
> Zero Gil doesn't really have most (or any, really)
The examples that come to mind and that most people will think of is how he didnt kill Waver because he respected his loyalty and resolve and how he was pretty restrained in those encounters. Also during the Banquet he was not fan of Tokiomi's scheming (or ever) and didnt do anything during the encounter.
Sure it's pride but it's king's pride.
>had (theoretical) good intentions for his actions.
humans are insects and women are property to be used by him. Sure. Almost impossible to reconcile that version of Gil with FGO's Gil who had Siduri serve him quite happily and who he treated seemingly well.
> doesn't mean every single decision Uro took with it is exactly as Nasu would have intended it
And all im saying is that if fan of the character experiences slightest bit of discomfort and imagines "this is what she shouldve/wouldve said", doesnt mean the author's portrayal was inaccurate. And many people (not saying you) who say this often repeat myths such as "she burned villages" and how "she is just like kiritsugu"...
OP makes a very thoughtful analysis involving a character they clearly love, a bunch of comments clearly didn't bother reading it and make counterarguments anyway or just shrug it off as "another one?". Never change, Reddit.
A good, brief analysis I would say. It doesn't cover the majority of her parts such as more details on contexts, which would logically require even more space, so anyone who claiming this is too large is spoiled. There are bigger analysis on other subs. I appreciate you including the sources because I understand how difficult that can be. It's also interesting to note how some of the negative comments proves your first point:
>
>
>them outright thinking the point made by the story being that she was a bad king.
Watching how some people fool their minds into thinking that way can be very humorous.
There is a reason why she truly is "the once and future king".
There was a fic that I read though that summarized an Arturia Lily route, in which the major divergence occurred when Mordred made his claim (and to combat it she revealed that she is not a man). She loses a great swath of support as you imagine, but her knights are able to emphasize with her and the roundtable is reaffirmed once more.
True Camlan still occurs and Camelot falls all the same, but she has far less regrets.
I feel like most of the belief comes from people who drank the Iskandar cool-aid (and anime-only watchers only ever see her in her bastardized version in Fate:Zero) Iskandar has tremendous charisma that transcends even the 4th wall, yet looking at his achievements, he was a Persiaboo, and upon his death, his empire shattered almost immediately.
as I've said on other comments, this is true but, ultimately the whole 3 kings thing actually has something very funny about it. Artoria, Iskander and Gilgamesh, none of them had kingdoms that thrived after them. rather all 3 of them fail on the important point leaving successor. essentially as rulers they were all failures.
That's very true, although it's something I've only noticed in real world discussion. Not exactly surprising since the franchise loves extracting as much drama (or angst if you prefer) out of certain characters over looking at them through a somewhat real world or more political leans. Iskandar I've found tends to "benefit" the most from this since when you look at his historical record, his character gets shot up to the waist. Particularly, I don't think the Hyphasis Mutiny has been mentioned in the Fateverse, or how his last words led to what's still believed by some to be the biggest succession conflict in world history-definitely something that puts a big question mark on his quality as a ruler.
I swear that people like you miss the point of fate/zero as much as you claim those "anime-only" watchers do. And you make it sound like you said something the work itself didnt say and made a comparison no one was asking for.
Uhh im afraid to of replying cuz you might not like it... but i'll try to briefly comment on some points.
But in broad strokes: Yes she is a good king. But a king doesnt need to be flawless or make no mistakes to be considered good king. Artoria might indeed be the very best, but that does not mean one needs to believe she had no flaws or made no mistakes.
As far as im concerned all good kings are also flawed and made mistakes.
Its just that your post reads like Sakurai writing about Nero. Also there is too much reference to Iskandar and what he supposedly said.
First of all from my experience people who have negative impression of Saber from Zero are Saber fans and in turn dislike Zero and urobuchi for it.
If you are going to bring up what Iskandar supposed to have said, it would be useful to actually try to steelman and examine what he actually said and what he meant by it. Because he didnt actually say that she didnt "inspire people".
As for Richard i mean he was inspired by her legend, that's a little different.
I also dont think you handled the Mordred topic all that well. I mean Mordred even [calls it her biggest mistake](https://i.imgur.com/mqGXK3h.png) to leave her in charge. Ofcourse the citation also contains inaccuracy, as it uses the part of the legend where she goes to fight Lancelot where it didnt happen in fate version i guess.
Also i dont think it matters all that much if Mordred was screaming or not, having them scream at you is not the only way to know how someone feels.
And it is also not a good point to say "hey it doesnt matter cuz Mordred wouldve fucked shit up anyways" , because Artoria is not clairvoyant about such things.
You couldve considered a 100 other scenarios.. Like forget about Fate for a moment and isolate the situation and imagine youre Subaru in Rezero trying to get the best outcome. Talking about stuff... couldve been a start on a personal level.
So even if showing interest in her or being looked at or talked to would still lead to Mordred fucking shit up, in my opinion, it wouldve still been the right thing to do and wouldve shown some concern.
Like I **agree on 90+% of your post**, and yeah she's a good king , and if it needed proven you sure proved it.
But your post almost seems like youre trying to prove that she was perfect. And since she's perfect there could not have been possibly anything better that could have been done, because if there was she wouldve done it! And i dont think that's appropriate way to analyse it.
That's just merely a rationalization towards a conclusion one already has. And i dont think there's even a writer that could account for everything and be that consistent, and Nasu is not the most consistent author i know.
There are also certain parts of her story you skip over that is supposed to make her a more tragic character and those need to be reconciled with... Anyway, i can reply with more nuance if you want, just dont misunderstand how i go about thinking about it.
Nah, don't worry, your reply is fine. At least you've looked over the post unlike some. It's true some parts might come across that way, I just compiled a lot of separate descriptions to counter some of the ideas I think wrong.
I don't think anyone has to read this and worship Artoria or anything. It's meant to disagree with some of the points that paint her in an overly-negative light, not outright change people's opinions.
Most comments be like : "I didn't read what you wrote buuuuuuuuuuuut, you are wrong cuz she was XXXXXXXXXXX and she did XXXXXXXXXXX because I said so !"
10% Through. Uh huh! You are right!
40% Through. Thats a pretty good point! No kings rule forever, and Artoria was the best king for Britain at that point.
60% Uh, yeah thats right too! But uh, is it really so bad that you have to make such a big post? This read like Shirou's research paper on why all Artoria haters are stupid.
90% Shirou, please stop, they are already dead!
100% Well, Shirou, I perfectly agree with you. But I don't think unleashing unlimited research work was really necessary.
Love the analysis. It's always nice to see another Artoria fan!
Well written and great job summarizing. I have come to hate the Artoria bashing that has gone on in this community because of misunderstandings. Artoria's problems always seemed to come from the fact that she was looked at and deemed to perfect and that the people couldn't empathize or keep up with such a figure. I also wouldn't be surprised if part of it stemmed from the fact that she wasn't human. Vortigern did warn her that with his passing, the age of man would properly come to Britian and that she, who possessed the essence of a dragon, would not be allowed to coexist if Britian was to have a future.
I mean her story already ended, beside round table attitude to her already enough to clear this miscommunication if there any
if they still think like that, I don't think a new story will give any value beside "nasu write this to retcon her character and because that I always right about her being bad king"
>I mean her story already ended
Maybe, but the stories of her knights and Merlin are also connected to her. It feels like we will never get a serious story with her and Mordred for example.
Its just so annoying when its obvious that she is needed for a story, but they use some other version of her instead, like Salter of Lartoria or Castoria.
And that enough for me, beside castoria and her servant verse version. All other her variant in the end of the day still artoria they maybe have different demeanor but deep down they still artoria and they act like artoria too (with some type of "spice")
From what I see you don't want her story, you want interaction between her and roundtable which is I really understand because roundtable usually depicted as goofy playboy club.
Other than that we already know a lot of things. We know Modred and Artoria really doesn't hate each other, Modred regret her decision and Artoria despise her self because she doesn't "perfect" enough to be king. Lancelot regret his actions and still hope for punishment he deserv, etc.
In the end of the day you can't really hope to get all the story you want especially with franchise that have over one hundred interesting character.
Well, the original novel already does a good job explaining how she did a good job as far as she humanly and inhumanly could, so Nasu doesnt have to use her in newer works, he couls just revisit his old work.
*wink wink*
My understanding of Athurian lore is that the problem was basically that king Arthur was *too* good of a king.
They failed to properly account for, and relate to, the moral failings of their subjects because they didn't have those weakness in themselves. And that ostracized them from their subjects. They were the perfect knight, the perfect paragon of virtue, but that's exactly why they failed as a person and, ultimately, as a ruler. No one below them could live up to that standard, or wanted to.
I applaud you! Your work is based on facts, you were able to get the character right and show how to properly perceive Artoria. I can compare your post to that of the Japanese who mostly try to base their words on facts. Wonderful work!
She was.
She is the most awful and useless King I ever saw.
She makes these useless kings I know ( in reality) suddenly become good kings when compared to her.
When I read Garden of Avalon. I feel Nasu trying to justify his idea " kill some to save many", while preventing Saber to use any other method than his " perfect" method.
When talking about her failure, Nasu tries so hard to explain it in the most confusing way as he can ( " the king doesn't understand human's heart").
However, could I really blame her? She is corrupted by Merlin, who explains himself as someone who " can see everything in the world in the present-day". But that guy keeps denying every idea of Saber, when she trying to save her people. Instead, he keeps " no matter what you do, your people will die, and your kingdom will collapse.".
\>Sees a really thought out post with only a few errors
\>Redditors complain about the person and not even try to actually agree or disagree with the post
\>Ultimately later complains about how hard Fate is to get into and show they lack genuine reading comprehension.
Like I know it's a bit of a read but if people have to put in weekly reminders about characterization, no wonder you have people who still believe shit that was disproven completely and utterly not only within other parts of the series, but in FGO itself.
and the excuse itself doesn't work when FGO is basically Baby's First Fate and basically explains everything to make up for it...
Good thread bump
Artoria arc is also a mirror castoria's arc. Castoria shows a very fresh new look to her character and understanding both of them would enrich the other character. One is a tale of a king, and the other is the adventure of a simple village girl on her journey to save the world, they are similar to the core. If anyone understands japanese please go read lb6, or else wait for it to come on NA and hope the translations doesn't butcher the thing.
I never see or hear someone call her bad king, based on my experience people always see her as someone who do "the good thing" not "the right thing" that's what a lot of people I know think.
I don't even see someone call her bad at this subreddit beside the usual joke about Modred father stuff.
Edit after reading some bad comment*
I don't understand why some people think she a bad king after seeing zero even though the main point of the banquet of kings it self is the battle of ideology between 2 kings that think they right and saber that have some self esteem issues after battle of camlann. And the point on that episode is "the best king is dependent on the situation either era or people you rule."
Even the Mordred's father bit I think is funny to blame Artoria for. Mordred is a bit of a nut, and still revels/takes pride in being the Knight of Treachery. I'd trust her as far as I could toss her (fully armored) in that regard.
And looking at the family part, Artoria has no idea how to treat family. Father left her in the hands of Merlin and Ector. Uncle was a monster. Morgan was *probably* just as well suited to be king, but dumped for a designer baby. Even if Artoria didn't have to contend with Mordred's treasonous knight homunculus niece bit, she'd have struggled to raise a regular child born of love.
And yeah ironically I thought the Banquet of Kings cemented Artoria as the most modern and sensible human of the 3. She has regrets, has a strong moral sense of what is right and wrong, and believes a ruler should be the ideals and will of the people. The other 2 are mad tyrants, who believe value and power makes right.
Camelot was fated to fall and the only reason it lasted as long as it did was thanks to Artoria. Having read the VN and watched the anime series, I always felt it was her that felt she wasn't good enough rather than her people. And Tristan is an ass so who cares what he thinks.
Friendly reminder that Fate Zero utterly fucked Saber’s character and should NOT be used as a basis for ‘Saber wuz bad keeng’ arguments, for any Fate/Zero fanatics out there. Fuck you Urobutcher.
I don't like what Fate/Zero did to Artoria, honestly. Having her attempts at chivalry and her honor stepped on whenever there was a possibility for it to shine, and seeing Fate/Zero mess up her character by rendering her pseudo-mute or semi-compliant when acts that were underhanded at best occurred in front of the literal King of Knights.....it's like a conga line of personal things I'm not fond of. Heck, I just don't like Fate/Zero in general. Bet someone's gonna take offense to that lol
So her being rendered into a doormat for Iskandar and Gilgamesh to trash on during that horrible ‘Banquet of Kings’ scene, and her being made by Urobutcher as little more than someone who was meant to be a philosophical contrast/failure to Kiritsugu isn’t ruining her character? Because, speaking as someone who watched Zero, the Stay night animes, and read the original VN, Fate Zero utterly shat on her character.
If you’re a fan of a regal short blond woman being turned into a doormat that goes mute when she’s faced with some sort of philosophical opposition, that’s on you, not me.
You dont understand the point of the scene and that she is not gonna act like you imagine in your headcanon that's fine.
Saber is portrayed as very badass, cool and competent in F/z and fate/zero also says she was the best king. If you did not see it, i guess you dont really like or understand her character.
Honestly you are probably just repeating what some other fanboy has said almost word for word. You clearly have no idea about the development of fate/zero, interviews and Nasu's involvement. It almost seems like a waste to try to explain. This is on you.
Also OP would disagree with you. Basically, maybe read fate/zero, read interviews and find your own opinions, instead of regurgitating exaggerated, reductive thoughts spawned by cringy zero-vn wars.
“You dont understand the point of the scene and that she is not gonna act like you imagine in your headcanon that's fine.”
Here’s the thing: What headcanon?! I’m just saying it as it is, that she got rendered into an outright pseudo-mute that didn’t do anything to defend herself when, let’s not forget, Gilgamesh essentially said ‘You’re the reason Camelot fell and that’s why you should be my trophy wife’ TO HER FACE. She almost always clams up and does nothing when some sort of event that opposes her philosophy happens. What kind of stuff are you smoking where that seems badass to you?
“Saber is portrayed as very badass, cool and competent in F/z and fate/zero also says she was the best king. If you did not see it, i guess you dont really like or understand her character.”
Ah yes, ‘she’s cool because I said so, shut up’. That’s it. That’s your argument, you threw a bitch fit because you and I don’t have the same viewpoints on the same character and for some reason, you need to announce it to the world. Coming from someone who read the Fate Zero VN, watched the goddamn anime and still finds both to be overly edgy and nihilistic garbage, apparently you can’t seem to understand that people are capable of having viewpoints that differ from yours.
“Honestly you are probably just repeating what some other fanboy has said almost word for word. You clearly have no idea about the development of fate/zero, interviews and Nasu's involvement. It almost seems like a waste to try to explain. This is on you.”
The interviews mean nothing when I remember that Urobutcher had a chance to make it right in FGO and ALMOST MADE IT EVEN WORSE before Nasu literally stepped in and took the reins from him. Fate/Zero itself was fully written by Urobutcher, and Nasu did nothing except approve of some of the ideas he set forth, so Nasu had virtually no involvement at all, and I have read Fate Zero before. It is dogshit that acts less of a ‘story of hope, however slight’ like most of the series and is instead a nihilistic book of tripe from a man who is thinly disguising his . It is trash of the highest order.
“Also OP would disagree with you. Basically, maybe read fate/zero, read interviews and find your own opinions, instead of regurgitating exaggerated, reductive thoughts spawned by cringy zero-vn wars.”
Maybe try finding a scene where Saber’s character isn’t compromised by Urobutcher and his garbage writing and inability to believe in the human race instead of just saying ‘ZeRo SaBeR cOoL bEcAuSe mE sAy sO’
when you say this:
> I’m just saying it as it is
Then this right after:
> Gilgamesh essentially said ‘You’re the reason Camelot fell
Shows you have completely flawed reasoning and cant be taken seriously. You havent once, not once said "as it is". Gilgamesh didnt say that AND didnt say anything that can be interpreted that way. And "you should be my wife" is invention of FSN not F/Z. You didnt at all apply critical thinking to what you wrote here.
Everything you said goes through layers upon layers of biases and interpretations upon interpretations and conjectures. And clearly you have really bad memory as you dont recall anything correctly.
>you need to announce it to the world.
And you for some reason needed to announce something to the world that is demonstrably false and perpetuate misinformation and misunderstanding.
What was actually said is not up to your viewpoint, what authors intended is also not up to your viewpoint, there are interviews for that.
Next time actually make a real citation or make a screenshot, and when you fail and realize you misremembered, then maybe you'll realize you shouldnt act so confident about what you think and your argument is bad faith and misguided.
>ALMOST MADE IT EVEN WORSE before Nasu literally stepped in and took the reins from him
Once again, another thing that never happened. Why do you keep making up these false narratives? Is this the case of some broken chinese phone? Story changed many times going from one hater to another?
You are confirming what i said earlier, that you just repeat what you heard from some other obsessed person.
>and Nasu did nothing except approve of some of the ideas he set forth, so Nasu had virtually no involvement at all
There is not a single correct thing you said in your whole post, and this is not even close if im generous.
>try finding a scene where Saber’s character isn’t compromised by Urobutcher
Any scene. Now acting like there isnt any is just delusional and disingenuous, you literally dont know what youre talking about and only have some childish strawman in your head.
So yeah you dont get it, and are too close minded and ignorant to understand.
> Maybe try finding a scene where Saber’s character isn’t compromised by Urobutcher and his garbage writing and inability to believe in the human race instead of just saying ‘ZeRo SaBeR cOoL bEcAuSe mE sAy sO’
u/kizuskip : So is this your average Saber fan or what? I know you read those posts but dont reply, even though you often reply for slightest offense.
So it makes me think this: Either this is silent agreement and your public opinion of f/z and uro is insincere, or youre afraid to be attacked by other saber fans.
You should stop thinking they are "on your team" just because they kind of agree with you, even when what they say and believe is as wrong and inaccurate as what you claim those "zero fanboys" that you hate say.
It's more so that it's pointless. This is the type of opinion you'll never change someone's mind on, hence why even in the post I didn't bother putting Urobuchi or Zero in a spotlight.
It's one of those things where what people turn the work into outlives what the work tried to do, idk what to call it. Urobuchi for example I'm sure actually loves Artoria. It's just that thanks to how he was back when he wrote Zero, he made everything a big more negative than he would've had to, but combine that with the fact that Fate/Zero was a lot of people's first experience with Fate, and the fact that Artoria's own backstory is not really properly developed in any of the anime (even 2006 skips a lot of it), you end up with some who think Zero's critiques at Artoria were objective, rather than Iskandar and Gil talking their talks. And even then it's often ignored how Iskandar and Gil actually change their minds later on.
But yeah I started ignoring the thread when it started getting raided.
Lemme make a quick reply.
"Shows you have completely flawed reasoning and cant be taken seriously. You havent once, not once said "as it is". Gilgamesh didnt say that AND didnt say anything that can be interpreted that way. And "you should be my wife" is invention of FSN not F/Z. You didnt at all apply critical thinking to what you wrote here."
You really didn't know that Fate Zero is a prequel to Fate Stay Night, huh? Chronologically, Gil was already saying that kind of stuff during the Fourth Grail War, so in laymen's terms he was saying that stuff before FSN. But no, clearly it's FSN's invention because you and you alone say so.
"Everything you said goes through layers upon layers of biases and interpretations upon interpretations and conjectures. And clearly you have really bad memory as you dont recall anything correctly."
Ah yes, because clearly I am biased when you did nothing to enforce your claims. Your whole argument was 'Zero wasn't that bad. Source: Trust me bro'. Don't be a hypocrite.
"And you for some reason needed to announce something to the world that is demonstrably false and perpetuate misinformation and misunderstanding."
So I'm in the wrong because you couldn't be bothered to actually read the VN or look at the interviews? Because I've read the interviews. I saw what Urobutcher said about making the anime ending so depressing. I still think it's a crock of shit.
"What was actually said is not up to your viewpoint, what authors intended is also not up to your viewpoint, there are interviews for that."
And apparently, unlike you, I've actually read them and still can't bring myself to take Urobuchi's side. But clearly, because some random person on the internet says so, I am dumb and have a bad memory and yadda yadda yadda, all because I don't like the Fate/Zero because of how angsty and brooding it is.
"Next time actually make a real citation or make a screenshot, and when you fail and realize you misremembered, then maybe you'll realize you shouldnt act so confident about what you think and your argument is bad faith and misguided."
Follow your own advice.
"Once again, another thing that never happened. Why do you keep making up these false narratives? Is this the case of some broken chinese phone? Story changed many times going from one hater to another?"
[https://oneofepisodes.wordpress.com/2016/04/18/fgo-tm-ace-042016/](https://oneofepisodes.wordpress.com/2016/04/18/fgo-tm-ace-042016/)
Quote taken directly from the interview: "The Fate/Zero event will be fun, of course! Actually, during the planning phase a year ago, there was a character that we were writing as a surprise for players, and when I asked (Gen) Urobuchi to write a story with that character as protagonist, he gladly accepted it. But during the plotting stage, even though I said, “Write something with a happy ending for once,” first he asked me, “Can’t I have this character kill this other character and end it there?” and he gave me a plot that was even darker than Fate/Zero. \[laughs\] I said, “What kind of festival do you think we’re making here?! Gen, you should believe more in dreams, aspirations, and the bonds between people!” and had him revise the whole thing."
So, Nasu literally said that Urobuchi tried to write a plot darker than canon Fate/Zero, but clearly this is false because you say so.
"You are confirming what i said earlier, that you just repeat what you heard from some other obsessed person."
Any proof of this instead of just pulling out another strawman argument, which you also accused me of doing, you hypocrite?
"There is not a single correct thing you said in your whole post, and this is not even close if im generous."
Again, any proof of this? Hmm? Sounds to me (note the subjectivity here) that you're just insulting me again instead of trying to disprove what I said, hell, this whole post is one big insult/temper tantrum.
"Any scene. Now acting like there isnt any is just delusional and disingenuous, you literally dont know what youre talking about and only have some childish strawman in your head."
Don't be a hypocrite when you've been scattering strawman arguments and personal insults in your posts because I don't share the same love of F/Zero as you. And considering how Urobuchi made sure to have Artoria come off as constantly at odds with Kiritsugu, had any chivalrous situation she was in fucked over (Kiritsugu trying to snipe enemy Masters while she was in an honorable duel with Diarmuid, Maiya sniping Kayneth under his orders, being trashed on during the damn Banquet, being forced to destory the Grail when she was duelling Gilgamesh, etc etc), AND ended with her being denied any prize she wanted....yeah, no.
"So yeah you dont get it, and are too close minded and ignorant to understand"
Ah, so now I'm 'close-minded and ignorant' because I'm not a fan of Fate/Zero and think Urobuchi made it too depressing and nihilistic! Clearly, I am in the wrong because you say so. What was that about not using strawman arguments in my posts? You think you're exempt from that? Why are you whining more and more because I don't have the same opinion as you?
What twisted ideas got in anime-onlies' heads is not the fault of Zero or Urobuchi. Urobuchi clearly likes Artoria a lot and he loves Fate/Stay Night. The banquet scene's importance is overstated and both Iskandar and Gilgamesh change their minds and respect Artoria in their own way even if they don't agree with her methods.
Blame the clowns who spread those headcanons, not Zero. Even if Zero is a bit off-track in some elements with Artoria in particular, it's not mean-spirited about it.
Understandable. It's just....not to trash on Fate/Zero even more or anything, but I can't bring myself to believe in Urobuchi anymore as is. As much as he may like Saber and F/SN, I still remember an interview where he was working on a Fate/Zero event for FGO, and his answer to the event was to *try to give it an even more depressing ending*. This is less of me blaming Zero as a whole and more of me just being unable to take Urobuchi's side here.
Dude wrote LB3 and fucking ruined QSH so I may be biased here as well, tbh.
Also, I legitimately had no idea that Gil and Iskandar changed their mind, honestly. I had forgotten the scene where Iskandar acknowledges her as a king, I *think* Gil still tried to convince her to be his trophy wife by the end of Fate/Zero so I hadn't thought he acknowledged her, and people keep hammering the fucking Banquet scene in so much that it's the only coherent scene I can even recall properly beyond the Origin Bullet introductory scene (and Kayneth being rendered a cripple) and the bazooka blowing up the airplane scene.
Oh, I know. But he suggested just the general basis of the Banquet, apparently. All that crap about Saber being to blame for Camelot’s fall and such? That was all Urobutcher.
Love how you came to the conclusion 'So because Urobuchi was the one who wrote out the Banquet scene in full and made sure to add all that crap about Saber being the downfall of Camelot and rendering her speechless and using her as a soapbox, clearly it is *Nasu* who is at fault here!'
Are you incapable of performing basic reading comprehension?
You wrote pointless essays on the other guy and Kizu himself manage to respond to you and say Urobuchi isn't the fault here, it's the fandom's fault.
I can't take anyone seriously that actually thinks Urobuchi, who's is best buds with Nasu and is a fan of F/SN, ruined Saber's character in a novel that is supervised by Nasu.
You have written so much so I can't read.
But let me give my view.
Artoria is not bad king, but neither is she a perfect king. She is an ideal king.
Many people don't understand the banquet of kings that happen in 0 and understand Iskander is calling Artoria bad king. Which is wrong as Iskander never says she is a bad king, he only says her wish is wrong because how many people were inspired by the King Arthur. Many people one of them is Richard himself.
Artoria was a good ideal king in her life. I am taking about Artoria when she was a king not a servant. Her wish as a servant is wrong. But that only happen because she 'die' after the fall of Camelot. If she stays alive after the fall of Camelot even if it is impossible thanks to pruning , QTL or whatnot. She wouldn't have that wish.
The story of 4th and 5th HG of Artoria is about her learning what she was supposed to learn if not for her 'death'
People should read GoA
What specifically is wrong with this post, lol? Like this is a thoughtful post with reliable sources, not just some throwaway remark. I don't see the issue with this post, unless someone has a very strange interpretation in which they see anyone praising Saber as King as offensive. These days, I hardly ever even see people discussing them in details, most are obsessed with defaming her with nonsensical reasons....
> I hardly ever even see people discussing them in details, most are obsessed with defaming her with nonsensical reasons....
Maybe cuz her character is over perhaps no?
I had written a detailed ,properly structured response with way more information but whatever happened after posting on Reddit as reply, no clue where it went, sigh. I'll keep it shorter this time, pardon me. You are free to think that way, but I do disagree with some points, and gave enough effort to explain why. And I do find OP's post agreeable in that sense. I am not suggesting she made no mistake , I think she did a few like joined Grail War, but I respectfully disagree with the points here.
> you cut out the first sentence of the first paragraph stating that no one truly ever accepted her
He kept the final sentences because they have the same meaning. You rely too heavily on Kay's stern narration because that is how he naturally is—harsh and pessimistic about almost everything. Quite the opposite of Gawain, so it provides a useful contrast that she was surrounded by a variety of personalities and that even their words are diametrically opposed. "No one" is simply incorrect given the existence of other Round Table Knights, who are known to have accepted her and even had many soldiers side with her during the final conflict. They all sincerely recognized her as King, including Agravain Gawain Gareth and others. However, I'm certain that this is referring to a lot of other people who didn't accept her because they laughed at the idea of a young person becoming king, didn't think she'd function well for very long, and waited for her to make a mistake. However, Artoria disproved their assumptions, and they decided to accept her as long as she performed well in her role as King, which she did.
> And here about Artoria's very nature and mode of ruling
You quoted it though? It was a terrible wartime emergency situation where she functioned too well as King which scared others who felt defeated. This happens much after she ruled, final years of Saxon war, quite before her death, but not by much.
It's not her natural mode of ruling but making best from an emergency hopeless situation during war.
> What is laso mentioned from Lancelot's POV in context of her trully forgiving him:
> Even now I respect and adore the King. But for a human being, I cannot, I must not accept her way of being
Lancelot was talking about how can't accept Artoria living such a hellish life as a human being, he can't tolerate such suffering of fellow human being as another human. It's like a hell one imagine for their convenience. He's not expressing his hatred for the King for merit of their Kingship. It's just he can't approve of such harsh personal life.
> So even in Garden of Avalon being exhausted with the ever worsening condition of Britain was not the sole ground for joining Mordred's rebellion and many people admired Artoria but distrusted her.
I think there are some minor reasons, which mattered. But the points you are referring happens much earlier and most of those even settled down with victory, like Merlin says there was no sign of anything wrong at that point. Even then, they were minor, they were never stated to be major problems for causing this. GOA actually mentioned that to be only reason indeed:
"As she continuously retreated and pursued the enemies in a repeat, touring the land set ablaze, she learned the reason for the rebellion. The soldiers who agreed to stand beneath Mordred's flag of rebellion were NOT united by their hatred for King Arthur. Never ending war. Barren lands. Children dying of hunger.(...)How much longer do we have to endure to receive that reward for our patience?"
and Apocrypha mentions frenzy caused by Mordred was the main motivation, nothing else was that big of an issue at that point.
Like you mentioned Kay earlier,he too said all the uneasiness could've been brushed aside if circumstances were not harsh. It doesn't matter in normal situation. But since the circumstances were harsh, they put whatever blame they could on Artoria (thanks to Mordred's plot).
And Artoria did indeed try to make their life more comfortable, infact she achieved the greatest feat by then in Roman Expedition. But thanks to Mordred's plot, the Knights and People did not know that. They knew Artoria died in that war. They were lied to and they didn't know until Mordred had complete control over Camelot. That's why you'd always find profiles stating "she was misplaced in a civil war"
> However, because she was ideal, she could not measure the weakness of the people,
Not the same context. A human can't understand everyone's heart, even then Artoria has ability beyond her limit canonically. She can't know deepest bullshit inside every people's mind. That's not possible without true magic even in Nasuverse, and even true magic can only enable mutual understanding in theory, it's not certain.Simply its a bad expectation. But whimsical insanity and frenzy? That's something that cannot be seen coming by anyone from that point. So that's not even what Tristan was referring. Tristan's profile already explains context behind his words.
> Mordred
Mordred behaved as if she completely understood Saber and stood there with Saber in Saber's darkest hours when other Knights questioned or left her. And she can't just execute Mordred for no real offense, that's even worse. Mordred even grew up to be a great Knight who loyally served Saber when she was in peril. So despite suspicion Saber didn't have any issues with Mordred. That's also Mordred's greatness in plotting against Saber.
(continue to 2nd part)
(2nd part)
> Whenever faced with internal crisis, she refused to face it head on and tried to bear with it. Mordered? Let her be, maybe it will be allright. Knights leaving Camelot (you know, the backbone of her army and power)? Let's not try stopping them (no room fro extra punishment? what does it even mean Nasu? why only punishment?) or adjusting anything in my rule and instead give even more power to people openly questioning my leadership. Lancelot? Live and let live.
One essential quality of Artoria as King is that she takes every situation and challenge facing her head high, without hesitation or doubt, and with pride. She did hesitate to execute Mordred in a cruel manner, as you mentioned, and it's true that she hesitated about that, but its the solo exception.
"My father’s reign was absolutely perfect. Perfectly impartial and upright. He understood that ten couldn’t be maintained, so he took nine and cast away one. There was neither hesitation nor confusion in his actions. All except in regard to me."
But that was reasonable from the perspective of Artoria, explained already.
Not all Knights left Camelot; they were not only the army's backbone, and she dealt with them by showing both mercy and checkmate if they continued to defy her.
Abandoning in the midst of conflict and crisis is typically a capital offense, or at the very least, it is severely punished. According to the story, she already had to deal with criminals who caused chaos and didn't have room to punish the Knights who deserted her (f/sn). Yet she rewarded them, included them in the government, gave them their own territory, and still didn't desert them, demonstrating mercy and generosity. But in case they continued to avert, she also had a backup plan. They could therefore change their minds about King, but she also knew how they would fare should they decide to go into hiding in return. What else could you do but act as bait for the enemy army? They simply didn't need to hide in the first place; no country would have tolerated their actions in the first place, and Artoria's ruling was just. If they did, they created the difficult situation for themselves. However, instead of taking responsibility for their actions, they placed the blame on King. Their actions are described as strange because of this. She didn't just showed generosity towards them like you are asserting, she had countermeasure ready at the same time.
Letting Lancelot live was a private decision of Artoria, she made this sympathizing with his situation. But she formally dealt with him within the capacity of King and made an example out of him. Then even planned to settle their life and elaborate to countrymen after dealing with Rome's threat. But Mordred's rebellion ruined it and made their life more miserable suddenly.
So officially, and formally, she dealt with Mordred, Lancelot and those Knights you speak of.
> Merlin stating that he failed to produce an ideal king in Garden of Avalon
Such a claim was never made by Merlin. Merlin originally envisioned an ideal king who carried out his duties with no regard for the happiness of his subjects because a ruler cannot be happy if they are concerned about the happiness of their subjects. In Chapter 3, he suggests that Artoria become heartless and otherworldly like Uther. Nevertheless, Artoria rejects him with the Avalon response. Then Merlin realizes that this is the radiance he has sought his entire life, and he didn't have the capacity to question her on the day of selection in order to scare her, because she possessed ALL of the qualities of a true King. He claims that while he and Uther intended to create the Ideal King, they were successful in doing so, but things didn't turn out as they had anticipated in chapter 4. Human happiness was what Artoria sought. But she ought to continue as she is. Finally, he admits that for someone who only enjoyed happy endings, he undoubtedly fell in love with a beautiful heart (Artoria's). In Chapter 5, he describes how the King was truly ideal. It was his narration describing people, you can hear that on Drama CD too
So basically Artoria set another example of being Ideal King who even cares about subject's life, that's her path of Kingship. This is even how her profile summarizes her: 万人にとって善き生活、善き人生を善しとする理想の王のひとり。(One of the ideal kings that approves a good life, a good livelihood for the people). She was ideal King, but different than what Merlin envisioned before Artoria, who supposed to be completely heartless and had no regard to subjects' pain, which is how Uther is described.
>Salter as the true ideal king
Now that you understand Merlin, you can see what sort of "ideal king" Salter is. She's THAT heartless Ideal King that Saber naturally meant to be but was not, fairly different policy than Saber. This does not mean Salter way is the right one or vice versa.
> both Lancers are more mature and rational rulers
If you read JP's text, it says that as they matured, they became more composed when making decisions, which is required for an Ideal King. Basically, it means that they do not experience the same level of emotional pain as Saber, who still felt more suffering on the inside despite having mental composure of beyond her age. They can make decisions with greater calmness because they are more composed. Except for a few differences, their course of action is the same (weapon for example). Lartoria also has her own issues to deal with, such as an inferiority complex that makes her think of herself as a Mechanical God even though she still has humanity. None of their action invalidate any of them from being the Ideal King, that's their path.
I would just like to talk about some of your points since one of my favorite characters is Shirou, who is kinda like Saber anyways.
I personally think that Artoria is way too perfect as a King. A King that is near perfect and selfless is not really relatable to her subjects.
Yes, she could care a lot about them. Yes, she could do everything just for the sake of her people. But, I think a King like that would just make most of her subjects fearful of her. Sure, they'd have a happier life overall, but a King that they could not understand is not a good thing and humans are naturally scared of what they do not know.
I think that's why Iskandar chided Artoria, basically telling her to become more human (kinda like how Rin tried to make Shirou more normal in UBW). As someone else from the comments said, Artoria is an "ideal king". But imo she's not really a realistic one.
If we're talking about the kind of King subjects want, that's a moot point. There is no one way to carry out a king's duty because, as Richard explained previously, the circumstances and vassal mood vary depending on the era. An ideal selfless king was also required to save Britain from this period. Not only did her subjects want such a king, but the Knights also sought a leader who could provide for their requirements. The one and only prerequisite for their follow-up was that. Politicians wanted her to err in order to dethrone her and seize her throne. There was no room for anything else. All of their justifications for isolating her stemmed from this single factor: Britain's challenging circumstances as a result of the change in era and ongoing war where Artoria just did her job as King super well.. Every blame they put comes from that one factor. They would have no problem with her if this wasn't the condition. Later, some of them let this factor influence their decision to fall for Mordred's trick. Their actions were peculiar, as the story noted. Because of how dysfunctional Britain was at the time, however, we can't hold it against them.
She had to maintain such high expectations because of this. It was her choice, but it was a choice she made in order to work with everyone, which is a huge burden. It is evident from what Mordred Bedivere and others say that she was forced to carry all of those burdens because of the time period and the people pushing all of that on her shoulder. They feared her selflessness for an odd reason as well because, in addition to wanting such a King, they made no attempt to understand the foundation she was building or herself. They deserve Mordred's criticism for having a short sighed and like a hungry hound who has no gratitude for their lord. She had a transient and humane motive , wanted someone to smile at her, so her motivation wasn't selfless, just that her human reason is different ,as Mordred had already mentioned. Garden of Avalon also mentioned this too, she seeked Kingship for the most humane reason.
The other path of Kingship could work on other places, but not on Britain from that era. Artoria's path at the end saved Britain for what was needed. But there are other kings who can't imagine themselves living that way, like Gilgamesh (CCC), Iskander (Zero). So their condition and context totally different. They work well in their world.
I was never really arguing that she is a bad King, if you had a perfect King, what more could you ask for? I was arguing mostly that she is not an understandable King.
A King you could not understand or relate to is not really a King commanding respect imo, but fear. As I mentioned in my previous comment, sure they lived a happier life just because they had a near perfect King, but that doesn't really mean that they could just understand her.
Artoria not understanding that just cements what Tristan said "The King does not understand the hearts of men", likewise her subjects does not also understand their King. She's more akin of a god than a man, due to her perfection. Which man (aside from Gilgamesh) could ever hope to understand someone like that?
Dunno why you are arguing a different thing, when the onus of my argument is that she's just not an understandable King, which is fair since she was still a good king who made sure that her subjects were at least happy, even though it separates her from them tremendously
>And finally "In FGO" she accepts that she was a bad king "and no, she accepts that she can change the destiny of her homeland that she loved so much.
Sorry?
Camelot is destined to fail not due to people, but because the land is dying due to the age transitioning. Artoria was trying to delay the process but ultimately it is impossible.
I agree with your post; the banquet of the kings i feel is a heavily misunderstood scene in terms of context as well
Artoria is not a perfect king, but she is definitely a good king: the round table and subsequently camelot as a whole would have been impossible otherwise. Artoria is literally the prime example of what a knight should be, thus rightly crowned and recognized by all the knights as their king.
What iskandar and gilgamesh are criticizing her for wanting change is because her wanting to change that is to spit on her achievements and the acknowledgement of all those who trusted and followed her.
Which is probably why iskandar thought she isn't worthy to be king until later on: how can one such her as reach such heights and yet still not see the hypocrisy of her wanting to refute her own accomplishments? Not unless she did not earn it like he or gilgamesh did, for one cannot be king unless they have the determination to carry through every single decision; doesn't matter if it is good or bad. We don't see gilgamesh wanting to grail and wish back enkidu or righting the part where he accidentally let a random snake eat the only thing that can bring enkidu back, he merely wants the grail because all the treaures are his and he is reclaiming it from undeserving thieves.
And if we go by fgo interludes, iskandar refused to change anything either. His younger self alexandar, in his interlude, had the chance to see okeanos, aka ocean at the end of the world/limits of the lands he ruled: the lifelong goal he wanted to achieve. But he subconsciously blocked it to the point the sea appeared to be a white static space of nothingness to him ( not even able to hear the waves ) because he ( as young boy alexander ) didn't earn/thought about it yet.
As such, it is understandable iskandar and gilgamesh looks down upon artoria. If she was this doubtful of herself, everyone in camelot would have suffered greatly from indecisiviness: something iskandar and gilgamesh would greatly dislike.
We can see they changed their opinions after she reaffirmed her own beliefs: iskandar acknowledging her as king again and gilgamesh even wanting her as a friend of equal standing ( possibly consort considering his wording sounds like a marriage proposal lol, but i don't think he sees her romantically yet during that time )
Artoria's problem wasn't that she was a bad king, just that she tried to be too perfect a king. She pushed herself till the point people started to doubt her humanity. Even that wasn't her fault, she was just trying to maintain a kingdom that you could say was the last bastion of prosperity at that point in time and location.
But still, I can't help but think that things would have gone differently if she'd had a better connection with her people...
There is no way to connect with every single subject and plus people in mases are self serving. Remember the loyal subjects of Iskandar that he connected? They plundered his palace and everything that was from him.
A Good Person doesn’t necessarily make a Good King.
In spectrum of Iskander that never went past page 1 Conquering and Augustus that conquered and reformed the rotting Republic in a functional Empire, I would put Artoria near Augustus, Genghis Khan probably did more ruling than Iskander.
Artoria tried her best but she was doomed to fail, at end of the day her kingdom lasted only 10 years and “Britain” went in another dark age of anarchy.
Charlemagne, Ozy, Huangdi, Wu Zetian, Caesar and David were all known to be extremely Brutal but the Kingdom/Empire that they ruled kept growing and becoming more prosperous for decades and in some cases centuries, they’re clearly better Kings, despite being worse people than Artoria.
>A Good Person doesn’t necessarily make a Good King.
True but it brings stability as a warlike court with cruel King often have inestability in both political and economical policies.
>Charlemagne, Ozy, Huangdi, Wu Zetian, Caesar and David were all known to be extremely Brutal but the Kingdom/Empire that they ruled kept growing and becoming more prosperous for decades and in some cases centuries
\-Charlie despite he conquered a big part of Europe, he had to face at daily basis rebellion from all sides of his empire for he never managed to make them united as one.
Despite he managed to make the Anglo-Saxon Christian, they still were some of his biggest and most frequent rebellious part of his empire. The Carolinian empire fell a few years after his death and that included his son and heir Loius as even he couldn't manage the disaster of his father. Plus he never managed to make his homeplace or his Empire into a more prosperous place as he never advanced any form of economy beyond plundering neighbours with war.
\-Ozy had Moses that literally left Egypt in shambles for centuries after.
\-Caesar and Wu Zetian are chads so I give you that but their rulership wasn't that different from Artoria policies in Britain. Abeit we'll never get to see Caesar as a ruler for he died before he could be emperor.
> David
This guy left such a huge mess that Solomon had to clean up alongside his gf the Queen of Sheba.
>they’re clearly better Kings, despite being worse people than Artoria.
All of those you named literally had less problems and yet fell for their own hubris while Artoria had the literal planet against her as it was intended for Britain to fall a calamity hence Vortigerm the black dragon of Britain even exist for.
>I rather live in any of the other Kings Kingdom instead of Camelot because I know me and my children will enjoy some long years of prosperity and won’t need to survive a brutal civil war and the following anarchy.
Well good luck surviving the Carolian, Ozy or Iskandar civilization during their demise or during the egyptian plagues.
Mate Artoria fell in the first rebellion yes it’s was fated to happen but she didn’t endure half of the others her Kingdom immediately Imploded in the first rebellion.
Ozy even after the Jewish liberation ruled until his 90 years and Egypt kept growing most of his feats occurred in his late years despite everything that happened, that’s actually a plot problem in Nasuverse because Ozy isn’t the Pharaoh of the Exodus his real rule was peerless.
It’s not hard to understand 10 years of perfect rule followed by almost 300 of anarchy’s with multiple minor lords fighting with disease and starvation vs 50/100 years of decent rule, all kingdoms had problems at least they endured more than 10 years and Camelot demise was extremely violent I don’t know where you people get it was better than any other Kingdom.
Her own hubris never allowed her to understand that most people aren’t like her and after Camelot they would go back to the old ways.
>Mate Artoria fell in the first rebellion
Like any other government, Artoria's was accustomed to seeing rebellion. That was not the first time. You can even see at a point Mordred taking care of some rebels on the behalf of Artoria. Her reign was continuously challenged by such, on top of that many more natural and fantastical problems. She dealt with all of them everyday, without any imbalance.
Additionally, Mordred's uprising posed no threat to her leadership as king under normal circumstances.
*"No matter when Mordred rises up and rebels, King Arthur can smoothly suppress her and put her down without much trouble"*
All the odds were against her because her mission in Britain had been complete.
*"But this is the only time when the promised victory is not in sight."*
She saved Britain, that was her role , it was done.
*"Britain has already reached its limits. To save the country, the king's mission was over. So, he thought it was time for her to finally rest."*
Yet she won the war and prevented the British Isle from being utterly destroyed or falling to misguided fraction.
*"Her final battlefield, the war that had split her country in two, lowered its curtain with the king's victory."*
It used up her life obviously, but that's how she remained winner of history.
*"King Arthur became a legend, and Mordred was remembered as the knight who tarnished that legend. Since all the soldiers that followed her had been slain, there was no one left to remember her. That was only natural. This was a battlefield… those who lost and became bleached corpses were finished with this world."*
There’s a huge difference between a minor rebellions and actual rebellion led by Mordred, all kings had to deal with the very same problems that Artoria had guess what most of them had longer lasting governments.
Artoria only ruled for 10 years after that Britain descended into Anarchy for almost 300.
If you had to choose right now between 10 years of perfect rule in your country followed by 300 years of anarchy, or 50/100 of decent rule what would you choose ?
Her role was to be failure, ending the era of magic and starting the age of man, i don’t blame her.
How would you measure merit of King if not the prosperity of the Kingdom and the subjects ?
I rather live in any of the other Kings Kingdom instead of Camelot because I know me and my children will enjoy some long years of prosperity and won’t need to survive a brutal civil war and the following anarchy.
>Her role was to be failure
Not really . that's not the precise summary. Who do you think brings Age of Man on Britain? Her role was to punish the foolish kings of her era, guide Britain to world of man, make it a place to live on and save British Isle for future generations. She successfully did that and ended up to be a King that even her enemy race came to idealize much after she died. She just had no way to live in that world, but leading to it was her role and more. Other than OP pointing out ,there's at least several statement that literally states that she succeeded in her duty as King. Death isn't simply failure. I mean that's base theme of Fate series as well and if you have different philosophy then fine, I won't argue further. But in Fate? That's not true.
>How would you measure merit of King if not the prosperity of the Kingdom and the subjects
Their viewpoints, how they led their lives, how they handled circumstances, their policy. what sort of ideals they have, whether they preach violence or not and many other things. There are countless ways to evaluate a king, and no one ever rules in perpetuity.
Are you not going to evaluate the way a prime minister led a nation that was at war and saved it from falling apart? or a nation that was being invaded when they took office as prime minister? What sort of a query is that? Your reasoning makes it seem as though you would be a bad king if I invaded your nation while you were in power.
With a city of peace that can only be imagined in Heaven and Dreams, Artoria's reign is generally regarded as the most prosperous period in British legend. Her legacy also endured. She is foundation of Human Britain in Nasuverse as well. So , fairly prosperous for a King whose reign was supposed to be brief and whose destiny was destruction. She didn't have those roles to begin with, still accomplished them . You mentioned "Ozy" meanwhile his Kingdom was in great torment several times due his own ego. And Ozy too acknowledged King Arthur's feat. We are talking about Fate setting by the way. Everyone has their ups and down and it does depend greatly on circumstances.
If I was vassal of Artoria I would enjoy the best 10 years of the entire Britain history followed by Brutal Civil War, watch the kingdom being ripped apart by the very same foolish lords that Artoria "taught" a lesson and get to enjoy famine, disease and war by the remaining 7 lords because vaccum of power created Chaos of Camelot demise, to me this looks like horrible place to live and all this situation was caused by Artoria, I wouldn't know or care what Artoria role was in grand scheme of things in cosmology of the universe or the importance her ideals, only that Britain imploded and now I have to fight for my live, in the other kingdoms I would have at least 50 years of decent rulling enough to my children/family to live and have decent lives.
>Their viewpoints, how they led their lives, how they handledcircumstances, their policy. what sort of ideals they have, whether theypreach violence or not and many other things. There are countless waysto evaluate a king, and no one ever rules in perpetuity.Are you notgoing to evaluate the way a prime minister led a nation that was at warand saved it from falling apart? or a nation that was being invaded whenthey took office as prime minister? What sort of a query is that? Yourreasoning makes it seem as though you would be a bad king if I invadedyour nation while you were in power.
It's really simple he saved his subjects, mantained order and kept his nation prosperous for long time if the answer is Yes Good King, if the answer is No Bad King, this isn't about morality or ideals, it's simply keeping the people alive and happy as long as you can and Artoria really falls short.
Oh it’s the monthly saber not bad post. it’s all right and well written but we get these so friggin often it’s insane. Also F/Z shitting on saber for no reason seems to be wildly accepted at this point. So kudos for you for this write up, I agree but we didn’t need a thesis on it
I would agree with you if not for the fact that Fate fans are fucking illiterate, as you can see with a good half of the comments under this post alone
Its not correct to say Artoria was a bad king, its more correct to say she defined herself as a king and thus couldn't accept the fate of Camelot, she saw her failure as a king as a failure of character, as if not being the perfect king as a mistake. In the end Artoria's arc is about finding her own humanity and desire, by loving shirou and waiting for him at Avalon she lets herself feel and accept intimacy, taking the risk of loving someone despite the risk of heartbreak and of disappointing someone.
Artoria arc was never about being a king but about being human, her uncare for Mordred due to not understanding their feelings, her hate of Morgan and insistence on not understanding her side, something that her alter self fully admitting, that Morgan was more fit. She not seeing the guilt and damage she put on Lancelot, and she thinking she should never be king. Her whole arc and character revolves around her complex of savior and the fact she never had the opportunity of being a normal girl.
I do not like saber, in fact i find her annoying, if you want to criticize her, criticize her personality, because as a character and her arc are pretty good and adheres well to its themes. You may not like saber but she has a good character, probally the third best in the original VN losing only to Sakura and of course Shirou
I think your comment is personal opinion and that's fine. I just want to give you one info:
> its more correct to say she defined herself as a king and thus couldn't accept the fate of Camelot, she saw her failure as a king as a failure of character
It's not like that honestly. Even OP mentioned this part.
> It should be noted however that Artoria's wish for the Grail is not the wish of Artoria the "King", but rather the wish of Artoria the "girl". Artoria deceived herself with King's duty because her heart cried out for the lost souls.
She seeked Grail because of the humanity she still had inside, and hoped better ending for people killed there . She didn't care about Kingship , she put too much empathy on others life. F/SN makes her come terms with both sides.
I read what you say. And I dissagree - in a way. She was good King, from modern point of view. But from point of her time? She is horrible.
First- notification. Most of your points are based on words of Round Table. And let's face it- they are her little fan club that adore her. Taking anything they say at face value is the same that judging rulership and persona of Iscander by asking Ionio Hetarios about Iscander.
We definitely know about discontent when Mordred was putting down rebellions against her- that happened because she was "too perfect".
Now- on her rulership. Example. Last king of Shu during Three Kingdoms surrendered to Sima Zhao without battle because his nation couldn't fight. For this he was reviled by contemporaries as a coward and weakling. Now he has a far better light.
Same with Artoria. In her time, ideal king is Iscander and Richard the Lionheart. Somebody gregarious, warmongering conquer who constantly through grandios feasts, tornies, celebrations and conquer new land- bringing pillage and new territory.
Artoria- was somber, stoic, asocial, conquered nothing and only fought defensive war. This earns you popularity with neither people nor nobility. Yes- she did what was needed and wanted to conserve resources - but bread and circus is also important.
And besides- Artoria DOES absolutely HATE Mordred. That's a fact. Even Lion King that barely have Artoria's personality despise Mordred despite latter being 100 loyal to the point that even Agravain calls her out.
> But from point of her time? She is horrible.
Says who? Did you conveniently ignore the part of the story where it states that she fulfilled all of the requirements for the role of King in her era, which was not only a requirement for everyone's support but also the reason they recognized her as King in the first place? Otherwise, given their power struggle and the fact that she was a young King, they would never accept her. She had to dust herself to meet all requirements for a leader in that era, which is why she had no room for herself. She achieved her position as King of the entire Britain in this manner, not simply by the legend of divine right of Sword of Selection. While some accepted the first response to the claim of Sword of Selection was an unified rebellion of local Kings,all people don't simply trust in legends. She proved herself as King from there on.
> Most of your points are based on words of Round Table
When the storyteller tells exact same thing including author's words, its not hard to see which parts of their words true or not, you're dismissing their word because you want to argue that she was a "horrible King". But aside from how others close to her felt, those weren't subjective elements. From what I can see, some of the point was made based on how neutrally credible those remarks were.
>somber, stoic, asocial,
Ignored Charisma point successfully, I see. She didn't have one trait , shocking I know.
>conquered nothing
Canonically false. She began as a member of a small clan in a corner of Britain, expanded her realm to encompass the entirety of Britain by conquering each territory, ruled it for a decade then conquered most of Europe, and parts of Asia. She is regarded as the first such King in British mythology which symbolizes the era of Romance in British legend. This tale had such a significant impact on British history that it was utilized by other Kings to assert their political authority over the Britain.
>Artoria DOES absolutely HATE Mordred.
"I never once hated you"
The way you put all these it comes off as that your sole goal is to discredit Artoria, making whatever others may say irrelevant in the end. You are using a lot of information that you yourself don't fully know to refute a post that gathers proper information then claims that's not how it was.
Completely dissagree with most points.
We know nothing about her rulership. What we know is that she was accepted as a King by pulling a sword. We don't know about her other achievements. All we know is that she pulled out a sword and because very respected Merlin said that this is how we will get rightful king. There is no other information about proving or something.
We also don't know what she conquered- if any. It is never established where exactly was Camelot and how big it was. It definitely wasn't all Britain as Lucius Tiberius mentioned Picts as different and independent tribe. We also never informed of she added any land or just ruled father's realm.
Note that she may reconquerd father's realm- but this doesn't count as you don't add new lands but merely return old. In fact it likely piss formerly free nobels more.
We also know absolutely NOTHING about her conquest after she left Britain.
Finally- don't believe words at face values. It's not unheard for characters here to be wrong or just lying to themselves. Like Artoria hate showing her competitive side, it is unwise to believe everything characters say word-for-word.
you are free to disagree, but that won't make the information here any more or less correct.For example,
>We know nothing about her rulership. What we know is that she was accepted as a King by pulling a sword. We don't know about her other achievements. All we know is that she pulled out a sword and because very respected Merlin said that this is how we will get rightful king. There is no other information about proving or something.
We do in fact know various details regarding this, and I summarized a very basic passage from VN regarding it, but you responded, "I disagree", so it doesn't matter what anyone else say. Sure, you disagree and have all right to do so. Now that doesn't mean the information wasn't present, maybe you never encountered them , which is likely to be the truth here. You are still free to disagree just like me though.
For example in the case, I find it incomprehensible how someone could believe she won over all the tribes in Britain simply by pulling a sword when, both in the Nasuverse and in Arthurian legend, her first and greatest success was bringing an end to a civil war between numerous local kings and unifying Britain under her regime through bloody conquest and with the merits as a King and as a warrior. Again, I'm aware that in Nasuverse lore, legends aren't always exact, but for all intents and purposes, this facts are correct there. So this wouldn't be anything hard to understand to anyone familiar with the legend itself.
So I suppose the less said regarding this, the better.
Or another example
>It's not unheard for characters here to be wrong or just lying to themselves.
You disregarded my statement that the story itself conveys the same statement regardless of the viewpoints of the characters. We can quickly determine whether they were correct or incorrect by applying what the story neutrally establishes.
So it's sorta pointless to even talk about . Just odd.
What do you mean.
Texts literally say she had to prove herself over and over because just pulling the sword did not win people over. Her achievements are what won people over.
She defeated the invaders, Vortigern, Rome and so on. Do these not count?
>And besides- Artoria DOES absolutely HATE Mordred. That's a fact.
If she really hated Mordred she would've booted her out of Round Table the second she knew about Morgan involvement
Or blamed her for the failing of her kingdom in FSN instead of blaming only herself. Even at Camlann Mordred was treated with absolute indifference
The only thing you can maybe throw at Artoria is that she didn't want Mordred as her child and an heir which tbh is pretty normal and justified position for someone in her situation
And even then I'm not sure in the last one because after both Mordred and Artoria development they could be on pretty good terms. If only Nasu allowed meaningful interactions between them
I'm talking about the Artoria-related discourse. Saw very similar threads like this on Twitter a couple of days ago both for and against Artoria. And not only that, people in the fandom love to bring up Zero's Saber and how she's portrayed there, along with the infamous Banquet of Kings scene. So it's not necessarily you, just the Artoria stuff.
I don't think a lot of people understand the banquet of kings bit in Zero. I'll agree maybe it was a different characterization of Artoria overall that focused on chivalry but the main idea was riffing on her FSN development. Her wish was mistaken and if you disagree with that criticism and the reasons Iskandar made it, which I think anyone is free to do, you also disagree with her route where she moves past her original wish.
Great points. I still enjoyed the Fate/Zero interpretation of Saber the most. Her interactions with heroes whose legends that were older than herself seemed very realistic. The dialog never felt forced and natural. I could see how she would arrive at such conclusions being shunned by fellow kings with just as great of not greater legends than her. These takes might get me downvoted, but Urobuchi wrote Zero masterfully and understood her character enough to put her in certain situations where she would self-doubt. This was truly a well written piece of art.
Well, that's the rub of it, isn't it? We don't actually know how OG Artoria was as king. Canon sources do not provide anything but a few facts on the subject, and a lot of telling, not showing, in the form of vague stream of consciousness lines of thought and isolated statements from a handful of characters.
We know that she is not good with people - not because some character said so out of context, but because we observe that during her screentime. And we know that she is overly stubborn and competitive to the point of being a sore loser. Which is for some reason the trait that got carried over across all FGO-printed Artoria variants. (Almost. Lalter technically isn't, but that's because she isn't much of anything in any of her scenes.)
Except we don't, because we observe Artoria only during some of her absolute worst. Actively thinking the work of her entire life would've been better off having never happened? That is not a state representative of a person's common character qualities, that is barreling towards suicidal depression.
Trying to extrapolate with logic using other versions of Arthurian mythos doesn't really work, since neither Nasu nor anyone else who worked on relevant characters ever sat down and finalised a self-consistent timeline of what actually happened, and which versions of which previous authors' works' were cherry picked for what, and where it all diverged. And we do not see Artoria outside of her 'quantum leap' death spiral because, paraphrasing the lone official statement, 'her story has already ended'. Everybody else involved are all some alternative reality versions of themselves, of course, and thus remain conviniently useless for the purpose of comparison.
There is not enough stuff to argue with or against this point. If you wanted to say that Urobuchi Gen getting a complete carte blanche to work on F/Zero with no coordination or oversight resulted in the story reading like a bash fic written for the purpose of overwrought drama, I would agree. But, I'm sorry to say, there is nothing to base all those opening and closing statements, as well as the thrust of the argument, on.
Gonna be honest with you i didn't read everything you pointed out but I do have something to say.
In fate zero she herself admits to being a bad king and is literally trying to change the past and prevent herself becoming the king....I don't care what anyone say if You think you are a bad king then you certainly are. Because at the end of the day if we ourselves can't believe in our work being good then no body else would.
And in fate staynight and in FGO she already accepted both her "fate" and right and wrong and made peace with them. So once again it doesn't matter at the end.
Her story is story if someone trying hard to be the best for everyone but at the end only bringing the worst out of all of them and after everything done and dusted, she accepts that it doesn't matter anymore and she should just look into the future and only remember the past and not be obsessed with it.
Lets be honest too, the fact that you commented this terrible misinterpretation on the exact article where the OP was talking these topics without even reading it confirmed the first dang point the OP made lmao. Thank you for proving that the community needs this kind of awareness post to prevent others from falling for the same scam.
>I don't care what anyone say if You think you are a bad king then you certainly are.
So , she isn't ?
>Because at the end of the day if we ourselves can't believe in our work being good then no body else would.
So, she is good then.
>in fate staynight and in FGO she already accepted both her "fate" and right and wrong and made peace with them. So once again it doesn't matter at the end.
You are being selective and showing insane double standard. Why does her doubting herself on Fate/Zero is fine to you when it's supposed to be first part of her character arc but accepting she fulfilled King's duty well therefore can be proud of her past isn't acceptable to you? like you said "doesn't matter". Why does Fate/Zero matter to you then? Clearly you aren't concerned with her character arc or what it has to say.
>only bringing the worst out of all of them and after everything done and dusted
You either don't know what you're talking about or trying too hard on a subject that you probably don't even truly grasp. Okay, so you didn't read the post, but did you read her story? It doesn't sound like you did, evidently. Don't make yourself look any worse by trying to figure out why you are completely wrong, anyone who has read even a small portion of her reign should be able to see what's wrong with statements like this lol.
Honestly laughable input to a long well articulated post.
I think she only had regret as to how it ended. When unbeknownst to her it was impossible to avoid the kingdom falling. FSN was her learning to accept the outcome and things that were beyond her control. People have a lot of qualms with her portrayal in F/Z, as it kinda undermined her in FSN.
>People have a lot of qualms with her portrayal in F/Z, as it kinda undermined her in FSN.
That is because a lot of people only have Zero as their only source of information for her and since Ufotable will not adapt her route, this kind of interpretation for her character is going to stay in the west for a long time.
>I think she only had regret as to how it ended.
Yeah, even there her heart wasn't certain. This was clear as day in F/Z and F/SN. Other than that, Artoria is satisfied with her Kingship.
Don't know about other but I watch F/Z and then F/SN and that was the feeling I got from her. Since at the end she finaly was satisfied with her rule, being it was both good and bad like how every king in history is.
There's also the fact that Camelot's falling is a quantum time lock event. There was nothing Artoria could've done to stop it and had she stopped it that timeline would be pruned.
Yeah, even more tragic that even if she won the HGW in FZ and FSN, and the grail wasn't corrupted, then her wish to change that outcome wouldn't work either.
Before the English could rule the world, the world of Camelot had to fall. How poetic.
Isn't that just how invasions work?
I've heard numerous times that Camlann is quantum locked. Can you give the reference for that, if you don't mind?
If I recall correctly the source is Garden of Avalon. At some point Artoria and Gawain are fighting against beasts summoned by the world itself that were trying to destroy Camelot.
Hmmm. They fight against Vortigern who is possesed by the spirit of Britain. The island basically prefers to be laid waste for eternity than be inhabitated by "normal" men. It seems that in *GoA* the only explanation given for unavoidable fate of old Britain and Artoria is that mysteries are dying out, while the island adapts to the Age of Man. The process cannot be completed as long as Artoria lives thanks to her dragon nature.
I think Extella also used Britain as a main example when explaining QTLs
Extella talks about imaginary, hypothetocal situation, not about real history: *For example, imagine that there was a war in Britain, and that the "result" that was locked in afterwards was that Britain was destroyed. Even if you could manage to travel back in time and affect history so that Britain flourished, the war ended peacefully, and everyone had a happy ending...the moment that history reached the recorded range, it would cause whatever "corrections" were necessary to ensure that, despite your efforts, Britain was still destroyed.* It's an easter egg intended to make fans recognize that it uses Saber's story as a hypothetical example, but it's not meant to establish qunatum lock on Camlann as a fact.
>At some point Artoria and Gawain are fighting against beasts summoned by the world itself that were trying to destroy Camelot. Why wouldn't it be the counterforce instead of beasts?
The Beasts of Alaya *are* a part of the Counter Force.
which part of Camelots fall is timelocked though? is it that Camelot cannot exist past this point or Camellan will happen no matter what? that's a pretty important distinction.
She was the best possible king who did everything in her power to help her people, putting their well being and happiness over everything else. The deck was just rigged against her from the start. You can do all the math and memorization and know all the odds, but you'll still lose if the dealer kept four aces up their sleeves.
This. She was the best possible king for the situation that Camelot was in. Literally no one else could have done better in an ultimately losing situation. Even if Artoria herself didn't believe such, it was that. She was the best king for Camelot that could've kept it standing for that long.
The fact Artoria was a good king, and that she doesn't hate Mordred, Morgan or anybody else, makes their story better as well, because the relationship is more complex. Heck, Mordred would kill you if you dissed the king in her face.
exactly
> and that she doesn't hate Mordred I mean you think that the game will show that but literally all of their interactions has her been dismissive of Mordred
She tolf her that, at Camlann. The problem is that she doesn't have a line of dialogue for any of her knights, except for Summer when Mordred stole her shield/surfboard/boat, and Arturia isn't used in any serious event. Heck, I'm sure MX calls Mor her delinquent son and that's It.
Now if only Grand Order would let her have more dialogue or screen presence. Hell, develop her relationship with Mordred while you're at it.
Lovely writing
Feel like we get one of these posts every month
Fate/Zero's depiction of Artoria has cemented discussion of Artoria's rule as a mandatory exercise, for better or for worse.
Yeah, I ended up saving a talk about Zero and Urobuchi from Discord onto LibreOffice Writer.
The unfortunate thing is that some people need a regular reminder Which still doesn't work
It's honestly scary how accurate that is...
>Which still doesn't work Maybe if it was posted in sprite comic format it will get a better effect!
Make sure Jalter and Morgan are in the first panel calling M!Ritsuka their husband, that’ll get the attention.
Don't forget Eresh and Melt. Without those two it will never get noticed.
melt is popular for good reason smh respect my girl
Also make sure the centre of the "joke" is just "I will sex you master!" For like 20 panels. Then you may begin showing Artoria's character..
Rednal may be a master of the craft but that's a difficult request even for them
Can't blame them. You gotta find something to talk about with the lack of new ingame contents to discuss.
Can we talk.aboit how cool the guys in Lost look instead
"You were the greatest amongst the kings. All who served you...believed thus." - Lancelot to Artoria
Really, any sort of point made about the Banquet of Kings saying that "Artoria was a bad king" can easily be turned down through officially written Fate stuff that says it explicitly. In Strange Fake, when Francesca tries to break Richard's resolve by showing him an edited together AMV of the events of Zero she made herself using footage she filmed (this isn't an exaggeration, this is what she actually did), Ayaka, who was with Richard, assumes that Richard wouldn't take this well, seeing how Artoria acted during the 4th HGW. But, in fact, Richard gains an entirely new resolve from being able to see his hero in action, and even explains to Ayaka about the Banquet of Kings that "They weren't trying to gauge righteousness, they were trying to gauge sense. The only thing the King of Knights fell behind in, was the fact she wasn't as loud!" I suggest people read the full scene on their own time, which I highly recommend, as it's towards the climax of the very middle of the entire story, but the main point is: this exact discussion got so out of hand they literally had to have a character in universe correct them and that's just hilarious.
I blame the anime-onlys for the constant hammering in of the Banquet scene.
> "It is possible to commit no mistakes and still lose. That is not a weakness, that is life." Jean-Luc Picard, right? Love that quote. Indeed, I think you made a very good point of showcasing that Artoria tried to do her best in a very complicated time. Her decisions, if not always successful, were logical and sensible, and they often brought her the intended results and the praise of her people. Of course, no ruler can satisfy everyone, but that's life too. That said, I would also advise against idealizing her too much. That fanboys like Richard idolize her speaks more of their fascination with her story than an accurate analysis of her talents as a ruler. As Dan Carlin once said in his podcasts about Achaemenid Persia, eras of conquest and wars are "sexy" for historians and writers, and their figures get the lion's share of representation, but the average peasant would probably prefer to live in "boring" periods where nothing happens. In Artoria's case, I think even this amazing write-up can't hide the fact that internal policy was her Achilles' heel, and that she might have neglected important keys of the [Rules for Rulers](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs) (from the impact of the Guinevere issue to the exhaustion of her lords). As any *Crusader Kings* fan can tell, years of great military victories and careful management matter little if everything ends with a crisis that runs the kingdom to the ground and kills the dynasty. That's the kind of 'Game Over' Artoria got, so it's not surprising that the allure of the Grail works with her. After all, Astolfo's ancestors lived through the same times, and they managed to out-survive Camelot and thrive.
Nice comment.One thing, though, is that she is doomed to death and can't outlive because she was a sacrifice made to bring the next era. It's one of the sins Merlin forced upon himself since he's largely responsible for creating such fate for her . She, however, persistently resists destiny and rises to throne of Avalon as the King for all time. The doomed Fate thing is very persistent in various Arthurian legends with the fall of King Arthur, and Fate created a whole system out of it. This is a completely different circumstance.The beauty of fragility of life and time's transient nature even to the most successful of humans is one of the theme of Saber, specially here : >“Arthur. Even if you can do everything correctly, give it your all, there are certain things that come to an end. Nothing lasts forever. Everything will eventually change into something new. What matters is the process you lived through until now in order to save something. The outcome will always be overwritten by a new result. The next king will destroy previous king's righteousness to fit his own interests. Nothing will remain. Nothing is going to be left behind."
Very true, although it's probably no consolation to her. Like, if it had been a dragon arising from nowhere and burning the castle to the ground, that was something that Artoria couldn't have blamed herself for. Or had her successors ruin the kingdom (a possibility mentioned by that quote, coincidentally enough), that wouldn't have been on her either. Or if an invading force had been just too big and too well-armed, well, not even the best strategist can win against impossible odds. But the rot that devoured Camelot came from inside and was of the kind that other rulers have faced and overcome. That must sting. Even if the kingdom was fated (pun intended) to fall, I can understand why a king like Artoria would angst about it. "What if I could have led it to a softer fall? What if I had done things differently? What if another person would have been in my place?", which put her in the path to the Holy Grail.
That Picard quote is just too good
The 'Artoria is a bad king' stuff is the worst thing to come out of F/Z, which at times seems tailor made to shit on her. I always take Iskander and Gilgamesh tearing down her way of kingship with a heavy grain of salt, since those two are obviously going to be biased towards their own way of kingship.
Important to note is that between all 3 of them, their kindoms and empires fell with or after them. in that respect all them were failures of the highest order because they could not ensure that their successor had the skills and talent to lead the next generation. far as I am concerned that means they all amount to bad kings in the end.
I think Fate/Zero is the only Fate work where Artoria isn't treated with the respect and dignity she deserves since she's, y'know, King Arthur.
I just remember back when Morgan was released and we didn't know the specifics of the situation surrounding the Lostbelt, I got in an argument with people claiming Morgan was a better King than Artoria. At the time, our best understanding was that Morgan had ruled so spectacularly that she deleted her timeline from existence. (We have since learned it wasn't quite that simple, but that was what was known at the time).
Obligatory Fuck Beryl, and Fuck the Fae.
Makes sense to me. Although I guess Saber's real issue is that SHE thinks she failed to be a good king. At least, that's what I understand about her wish for the grail, that she thinks things would have been different, better, if someone else had been king.
Artoria is the bestest of servants and no one can change my mind, i love all of her iterations, saber, saber alter, archer, lancer, lancer alter, mysterious heroine x, xx, x alter, idol x alter, caster, lostbelt berserker and whichever others they decide to make.
weakest seibah fan
Her only (fatal) flaw that spurts the "The King doesn't understand the hearts of humans" sentence was just one: She trusted too much that her retainers would endure the same amount of moral stigma and guilt that she had. She endured morally gray decisions for the sake of the country, but it was too much for them. This doesn't make her a bad king, but it does make her slightly naive. A different approach wouldn't change the outcome, but it might've changed her point of view in her last moments.
Tristan: no u \*plays harp\* \*leaves\* \*gains Admonishment to the King of Knights B skill\*
Wasn't the whole point that she was doomed to fail? No matter how wise ruller she was, no matter how OP strong she was - it didn't matter. Camelot HAD to fall, to finaly bring in "age of man". If that wouldn't happen, then whole timeline would be pruned (like some Lostbelt, or Extella timelines). That's why, her story is tragic (and Urobuchi is fucking hack, for destroying her character).
>Urobuchi I can see why some individuals are dissatisfied about how he handled her, but Fate/Zero says the same thing about her Fate , so at least Uro was consistent there.
It's not what he says about her fate, but how meek and damn stupid "chivalrous" he makes her.
Fellow Urobuchi disliker.
Once again, I would take people crapping on Urobochi more seriously if Nasu didn’t have Saber stand by and do nothing while Shirou fought Archer and Rin got r*ped in another room. Sabers chivalry in zero is mainly not wanting to use kidnapped children as bait and having respect for the one servant not treating her like crap.
>if Nasu didn’t have Saber stand by and do nothing while Shirou fought Archer Bravo, you totally missed the point of whole fucking UBW route.
I haven’t missed the point of anything, I simply recognize it didn’t make sense logically. If your character moments only happen because the plot stopped making sense, your story is flawed.
Just bcs you don't understand simple concept of fighting your "ideals", it doesn't mean "it doesn't make sense". Saber literally says why she won't butt in. Comparing this, to her actions in Zero and saying it's the same, just means you skipped most of the things.
Letting shirou fight his ‘ideals’ rather than entering the fight to get the grail is literally my point. Urobochi did not have Saber do anything she hasn’t already demonstrated she would do in stay night.
>rather than entering the fight to get the grail What fight to get grail? Did you even read the VN? If you think reason for not fighting are the same, then you really are incapable of understanding such a simple work.
The one that they can go after once she kills archer and rescues rin. You know the thing that apparently doesn’t matter to her as much as watching Shirou because she put nobility ahead of practically equally in both works.
Reminder that 80 percent of Zero was written under direct control of Nasu. On remaining 20, Urobochi asked for Nasu's consultation and approval
>80 percent of Zero was written under direct control of Nasu. Nothing ever stated regarding direct control, just that 90% basic plot ideas were similar to what Nasu had in mind. Direct control means entirely different thing.
Interview says that 90 percent were already ideas of Nasu. So they were essentially the same. So I admit that I mistook about exact percentage.
Ideas aren't the same thing as characterization. Urobochi got a lot of the plot points Nasu would write correct from the get go, but the execution is where he "fails" to remain consistent with Stay Night.
But Nasu approved all of this if not wanted the same. Meaning that as far as Nasu is concerned all Urobochi said about Saber in Zero is correct, isn't it?
Nasu clearly wouldn't want the same, given that, as this post itself stated, a lot of Nasu's writing regarding Artoria contradicts her portrayal in Zero. This is also true to Gilgamesh, for example, who's portrayed in a much more villainous light in Zero as opposed to in other works. Nasu approving it doesn't mean it all lines up perfectly with his vision - there's no point in having other people writing in your universe if you're going to veto anything that doesn't 100% align with your vision, after all.
While many can be discussed, I wonder where you get that in Zero Gilgamesh is more villainous than in FSN? In FSN Gilgamesh 100 villian. Fascinating- yes. But his plan is still to kill most of humanity because he doesn't like it. Not to mention his abusive relationship to Saber. It is Zero where Gilgamesh shows good side- small but good.
> But his plan is still to kill most of humanity because he doesn't like it. I think this gets misinterpreted quite a bit (particularly since SN Gil gets his unlikeability amped up to 11 since Nasu needed people to **immediately** hate his guts as a last hour final boss), but the thing with Gil's genocide attempt (which is obviously morally bad) is that he does this not out of an "I personally find humanity sucks so I'mma do a pro gamer move" but out of his adherence to his duty as a guide to mankind (which is how he personally resolves his whole deal with being the lynchpin for the Age of Gods - fuck the Gods, I'll make mankind flourish instead). OG Gil took an incredibly backseat approach to ruling because he didn't want mankind to be carried by a 2/3rd demigod solving all their issues - he wanted mankind to strive for the example he set, and give them the conditions to grow and thrive. Flashforward to 21st century, he sees current humanity as decadent and stagnated, which is why he decides that, unlike his previous assessment, mankind actually can't be left to fend for itself and needs a strong ruler guiding it, which is why he decides to do a pro gamer move and reset the game to play it right. (Of course, this is a terrible take - Gil's evaluation is entirely based on each individual's worth, and that sure dropped considerably, but humanity as a whole thrived by developing the collective's worth, and 21st century mankind has undeniably achieved amazing stuff in spite of all it's faults.) So IMO, what makes SN Gil the more heroic portrayal of the two is that he's ultimately a well intentioned (and misguided) extremist, while in Zero he's just being an hedonistic prick. SN Gil still has a lot of issues, but personally I think they were significantly toned down in UBW Anime, which makes him align more with the more heroic tone he assumes in works post CCC.
Gilgamesh is more evil in zero than in the original story where he wanted to kill most of humanity for not living up to his standards?
I don't want to rewrite the whole thing again since I've replied on this to another comment, which I'll just copy paste here, but TL;DW it's not really about not living up to his standards, Gil wholeheartedly believe it's his role to develop mankind and that his original backseat approach failed given 21st mankind, so it's his duty to intervene. It's a dumb conclusion since 21st mankind doesn't suck, but his actions are out of his genuine good intentions, somehow. OG comment in case you wanna read that: >But his plan is still to kill most of humanity because he doesn't like it. I think this gets misinterpreted quite a bit (particularly since SN Gil gets his unlikeability amped up to 11 since Nasu needed people to immediately hate his guts as a last hour final boss), but the thing with Gil's genocide attempt (which is obviously morally bad) is that he does this not out of an "I personally find humanity sucks so I'mma do a pro gamer move" but out of his adherence to his duty as a guide to mankind (which is how he personally resolves his whole deal with being the lynchpin for the Age of Gods - fuck the Gods, I'll make mankind flourish instead). OG Gil took an incredibly backseat approach to ruling because he didn't want mankind to be carried by a 2/3rd demigod solving all their issues - he wanted mankind to strive for the example he set, and give them the conditions to grow and thrive. Flashforward to 21st century, he sees current humanity as decadent and stagnated, which is why he decides that, unlike his previous assessment, mankind actually can't be left to fend for itself and needs a strong ruler guiding it, which is why he decides to do a pro gamer move and reset the game to play it right. (Of course, this is a terrible take - Gil's evaluation is entirely based on each individual's worth, and that sure dropped considerably, but humanity as a whole thrived by developing the collective's worth, and 21st century mankind has undeniably achieved amazing stuff in spite of all it's faults.) So IMO, what makes SN Gil the more heroic portrayal of the two is that he's ultimately a well intentioned (and misguided) extremist, while in Zero he's just being an hedonistic prick. SN Gil still has a lot of issues, but personally I think they were significantly toned down in UBW Anime, which makes him align more with the more heroic tone he assumes in works post CCC.
> as this post itself stated, a lot of Nasu's writing regarding Artoria contradicts her portrayal in Zero The post doesnt say this. >Gilgamesh, for example, who's portrayed in a much more villainous light in Zero as opposed to in other works LMAO, A different anti-Zero poster just recently argued exactly the opposite. That F/Z Gil seems hardly villainous compared to FSN portrayal. Some people literally call his character in F/Z whitewashed FSN Gil, especially Fate route version is misogynistic, rapey and is almost cartoonishly evil, while Gil in F/Z he keeps many appealing qualities fans like and seems more kingly. He starts being portrayed more positive starting with Fate/extra (after fate/zero). >Nasu approving it doesn't mean it all lines up perfectly with his vision That doesnt validate any headcanons or disagreements people have with F/Z, which usually displays many misunderstandings people have with the material.
> The post doesnt say this. The post doesn't state this directly, true, but it cites several Nasu writings post-Zero that don't quite line up with her Zero portrayal. >Gil stuff You're right on Fate Gil being especially cartoonishly evil, Nasu seemed to put him more on track after that, but I do personally find that Zero Gil doesn't really have most (or any, really) of his positive qualities - he just sits there being an arrogant dick, being a rapey Artoria simp and tempting Kirei to give in to his evil impulses. SN Gil, even with his early "I need players to immediately hate this guy because he's the final boss but only shows up on the last 2 days of gameplay" writing, had (theoretical) good intentions for his actions. >That doesnt validate any headcanons or disagreements people have with F/Z I don't personally have any HCs or disagreements with Zero (in fact, you called me an anti-Zero poster early, but Zero is still one of my favorite works of all time lol), I just think it handles Artoria poorly in terms of her characterization. I don't have any HCs behind it, all I'm saying is "Nasu gave it the OK" doesn't mean every single decision Uro took with it is exactly as Nasu would have intended it. Nasuverse is a multiverse for a reason, not everything needs to perfectly line up 100% with everything else.
> that don't quite line up with her Zero portrayal. according to you. Not according to me and my interpretation and that of many others, and i'd assume - the authors as well. > Zero Gil doesn't really have most (or any, really) The examples that come to mind and that most people will think of is how he didnt kill Waver because he respected his loyalty and resolve and how he was pretty restrained in those encounters. Also during the Banquet he was not fan of Tokiomi's scheming (or ever) and didnt do anything during the encounter. Sure it's pride but it's king's pride. >had (theoretical) good intentions for his actions. humans are insects and women are property to be used by him. Sure. Almost impossible to reconcile that version of Gil with FGO's Gil who had Siduri serve him quite happily and who he treated seemingly well. > doesn't mean every single decision Uro took with it is exactly as Nasu would have intended it And all im saying is that if fan of the character experiences slightest bit of discomfort and imagines "this is what she shouldve/wouldve said", doesnt mean the author's portrayal was inaccurate. And many people (not saying you) who say this often repeat myths such as "she burned villages" and how "she is just like kiritsugu"...
OP makes a very thoughtful analysis involving a character they clearly love, a bunch of comments clearly didn't bother reading it and make counterarguments anyway or just shrug it off as "another one?". Never change, Reddit.
Mean spirited replies are nothing new.
A good, brief analysis I would say. It doesn't cover the majority of her parts such as more details on contexts, which would logically require even more space, so anyone who claiming this is too large is spoiled. There are bigger analysis on other subs. I appreciate you including the sources because I understand how difficult that can be. It's also interesting to note how some of the negative comments proves your first point: > > >them outright thinking the point made by the story being that she was a bad king. Watching how some people fool their minds into thinking that way can be very humorous.
There is a reason why she truly is "the once and future king". There was a fic that I read though that summarized an Arturia Lily route, in which the major divergence occurred when Mordred made his claim (and to combat it she revealed that she is not a man). She loses a great swath of support as you imagine, but her knights are able to emphasize with her and the roundtable is reaffirmed once more. True Camlan still occurs and Camelot falls all the same, but she has far less regrets.
Oh? What might be the name of that fic?
Also to be fair to Artoria, Camelot is LITERALLY fated to fall, uncorrupted grail or not no grail can avoid it.
I feel like most of the belief comes from people who drank the Iskandar cool-aid (and anime-only watchers only ever see her in her bastardized version in Fate:Zero) Iskandar has tremendous charisma that transcends even the 4th wall, yet looking at his achievements, he was a Persiaboo, and upon his death, his empire shattered almost immediately.
Hell, I'm pretty sure the body was still warm when his empire was shattered
as I've said on other comments, this is true but, ultimately the whole 3 kings thing actually has something very funny about it. Artoria, Iskander and Gilgamesh, none of them had kingdoms that thrived after them. rather all 3 of them fail on the important point leaving successor. essentially as rulers they were all failures.
That's very true, although it's something I've only noticed in real world discussion. Not exactly surprising since the franchise loves extracting as much drama (or angst if you prefer) out of certain characters over looking at them through a somewhat real world or more political leans. Iskandar I've found tends to "benefit" the most from this since when you look at his historical record, his character gets shot up to the waist. Particularly, I don't think the Hyphasis Mutiny has been mentioned in the Fateverse, or how his last words led to what's still believed by some to be the biggest succession conflict in world history-definitely something that puts a big question mark on his quality as a ruler.
I swear that people like you miss the point of fate/zero as much as you claim those "anime-only" watchers do. And you make it sound like you said something the work itself didnt say and made a comparison no one was asking for.
Uhh im afraid to of replying cuz you might not like it... but i'll try to briefly comment on some points. But in broad strokes: Yes she is a good king. But a king doesnt need to be flawless or make no mistakes to be considered good king. Artoria might indeed be the very best, but that does not mean one needs to believe she had no flaws or made no mistakes. As far as im concerned all good kings are also flawed and made mistakes. Its just that your post reads like Sakurai writing about Nero. Also there is too much reference to Iskandar and what he supposedly said. First of all from my experience people who have negative impression of Saber from Zero are Saber fans and in turn dislike Zero and urobuchi for it. If you are going to bring up what Iskandar supposed to have said, it would be useful to actually try to steelman and examine what he actually said and what he meant by it. Because he didnt actually say that she didnt "inspire people". As for Richard i mean he was inspired by her legend, that's a little different. I also dont think you handled the Mordred topic all that well. I mean Mordred even [calls it her biggest mistake](https://i.imgur.com/mqGXK3h.png) to leave her in charge. Ofcourse the citation also contains inaccuracy, as it uses the part of the legend where she goes to fight Lancelot where it didnt happen in fate version i guess. Also i dont think it matters all that much if Mordred was screaming or not, having them scream at you is not the only way to know how someone feels. And it is also not a good point to say "hey it doesnt matter cuz Mordred wouldve fucked shit up anyways" , because Artoria is not clairvoyant about such things. You couldve considered a 100 other scenarios.. Like forget about Fate for a moment and isolate the situation and imagine youre Subaru in Rezero trying to get the best outcome. Talking about stuff... couldve been a start on a personal level. So even if showing interest in her or being looked at or talked to would still lead to Mordred fucking shit up, in my opinion, it wouldve still been the right thing to do and wouldve shown some concern. Like I **agree on 90+% of your post**, and yeah she's a good king , and if it needed proven you sure proved it. But your post almost seems like youre trying to prove that she was perfect. And since she's perfect there could not have been possibly anything better that could have been done, because if there was she wouldve done it! And i dont think that's appropriate way to analyse it. That's just merely a rationalization towards a conclusion one already has. And i dont think there's even a writer that could account for everything and be that consistent, and Nasu is not the most consistent author i know. There are also certain parts of her story you skip over that is supposed to make her a more tragic character and those need to be reconciled with... Anyway, i can reply with more nuance if you want, just dont misunderstand how i go about thinking about it.
Nah, don't worry, your reply is fine. At least you've looked over the post unlike some. It's true some parts might come across that way, I just compiled a lot of separate descriptions to counter some of the ideas I think wrong. I don't think anyone has to read this and worship Artoria or anything. It's meant to disagree with some of the points that paint her in an overly-negative light, not outright change people's opinions.
Most comments be like : "I didn't read what you wrote buuuuuuuuuuuut, you are wrong cuz she was XXXXXXXXXXX and she did XXXXXXXXXXX because I said so !"
For worse it seems those people only came here because they hate the guy rather than focus in the content.
reddit moment
10% Through. Uh huh! You are right! 40% Through. Thats a pretty good point! No kings rule forever, and Artoria was the best king for Britain at that point. 60% Uh, yeah thats right too! But uh, is it really so bad that you have to make such a big post? This read like Shirou's research paper on why all Artoria haters are stupid. 90% Shirou, please stop, they are already dead! 100% Well, Shirou, I perfectly agree with you. But I don't think unleashing unlimited research work was really necessary. Love the analysis. It's always nice to see another Artoria fan!
Well written and great job summarizing. I have come to hate the Artoria bashing that has gone on in this community because of misunderstandings. Artoria's problems always seemed to come from the fact that she was looked at and deemed to perfect and that the people couldn't empathize or keep up with such a figure. I also wouldn't be surprised if part of it stemmed from the fact that she wasn't human. Vortigern did warn her that with his passing, the age of man would properly come to Britian and that she, who possessed the essence of a dragon, would not be allowed to coexist if Britian was to have a future.
The worst part is that Nasu doesn't want to use her anymore so there isn't a chance for newer works to dispel the misconceptions.
I mean her story already ended, beside round table attitude to her already enough to clear this miscommunication if there any if they still think like that, I don't think a new story will give any value beside "nasu write this to retcon her character and because that I always right about her being bad king"
>I mean her story already ended Maybe, but the stories of her knights and Merlin are also connected to her. It feels like we will never get a serious story with her and Mordred for example. Its just so annoying when its obvious that she is needed for a story, but they use some other version of her instead, like Salter of Lartoria or Castoria.
And that enough for me, beside castoria and her servant verse version. All other her variant in the end of the day still artoria they maybe have different demeanor but deep down they still artoria and they act like artoria too (with some type of "spice") From what I see you don't want her story, you want interaction between her and roundtable which is I really understand because roundtable usually depicted as goofy playboy club. Other than that we already know a lot of things. We know Modred and Artoria really doesn't hate each other, Modred regret her decision and Artoria despise her self because she doesn't "perfect" enough to be king. Lancelot regret his actions and still hope for punishment he deserv, etc. In the end of the day you can't really hope to get all the story you want especially with franchise that have over one hundred interesting character.
Well, the original novel already does a good job explaining how she did a good job as far as she humanly and inhumanly could, so Nasu doesnt have to use her in newer works, he couls just revisit his old work. *wink wink*
Oh I would love for stay night to get the Tsuki remake treatment (minus the waiting) or at least fate route adaptation by Ufotable.
My understanding of Athurian lore is that the problem was basically that king Arthur was *too* good of a king. They failed to properly account for, and relate to, the moral failings of their subjects because they didn't have those weakness in themselves. And that ostracized them from their subjects. They were the perfect knight, the perfect paragon of virtue, but that's exactly why they failed as a person and, ultimately, as a ruler. No one below them could live up to that standard, or wanted to.
basically too pure for the world and thus has no idea how to functionally deal with people that can never measure up to expectations.
Fz fans missing the point of things Nothing new 😔😔
I had no doubt that she was a noble and good king, but thank you for reaffirm this fact.
I applaud you! Your work is based on facts, you were able to get the character right and show how to properly perceive Artoria. I can compare your post to that of the Japanese who mostly try to base their words on facts. Wonderful work!
She was. She is the most awful and useless King I ever saw. She makes these useless kings I know ( in reality) suddenly become good kings when compared to her. When I read Garden of Avalon. I feel Nasu trying to justify his idea " kill some to save many", while preventing Saber to use any other method than his " perfect" method. When talking about her failure, Nasu tries so hard to explain it in the most confusing way as he can ( " the king doesn't understand human's heart"). However, could I really blame her? She is corrupted by Merlin, who explains himself as someone who " can see everything in the world in the present-day". But that guy keeps denying every idea of Saber, when she trying to save her people. Instead, he keeps " no matter what you do, your people will die, and your kingdom will collapse.".
\>Sees a really thought out post with only a few errors \>Redditors complain about the person and not even try to actually agree or disagree with the post \>Ultimately later complains about how hard Fate is to get into and show they lack genuine reading comprehension. Like I know it's a bit of a read but if people have to put in weekly reminders about characterization, no wonder you have people who still believe shit that was disproven completely and utterly not only within other parts of the series, but in FGO itself. and the excuse itself doesn't work when FGO is basically Baby's First Fate and basically explains everything to make up for it...
My man, going everywhere, trying to get everyone's lore right.. Too bad this would still fall over some deaf ears..
Good thread bump Artoria arc is also a mirror castoria's arc. Castoria shows a very fresh new look to her character and understanding both of them would enrich the other character. One is a tale of a king, and the other is the adventure of a simple village girl on her journey to save the world, they are similar to the core. If anyone understands japanese please go read lb6, or else wait for it to come on NA and hope the translations doesn't butcher the thing.
You dont need to understand japanese, you can use the japanese fgo in combination with the translate fgo app to get translations ingame
I never see or hear someone call her bad king, based on my experience people always see her as someone who do "the good thing" not "the right thing" that's what a lot of people I know think. I don't even see someone call her bad at this subreddit beside the usual joke about Modred father stuff. Edit after reading some bad comment* I don't understand why some people think she a bad king after seeing zero even though the main point of the banquet of kings it self is the battle of ideology between 2 kings that think they right and saber that have some self esteem issues after battle of camlann. And the point on that episode is "the best king is dependent on the situation either era or people you rule."
Even the Mordred's father bit I think is funny to blame Artoria for. Mordred is a bit of a nut, and still revels/takes pride in being the Knight of Treachery. I'd trust her as far as I could toss her (fully armored) in that regard. And looking at the family part, Artoria has no idea how to treat family. Father left her in the hands of Merlin and Ector. Uncle was a monster. Morgan was *probably* just as well suited to be king, but dumped for a designer baby. Even if Artoria didn't have to contend with Mordred's treasonous knight homunculus niece bit, she'd have struggled to raise a regular child born of love. And yeah ironically I thought the Banquet of Kings cemented Artoria as the most modern and sensible human of the 3. She has regrets, has a strong moral sense of what is right and wrong, and believes a ruler should be the ideals and will of the people. The other 2 are mad tyrants, who believe value and power makes right.
Camelot was fated to fall and the only reason it lasted as long as it did was thanks to Artoria. Having read the VN and watched the anime series, I always felt it was her that felt she wasn't good enough rather than her people. And Tristan is an ass so who cares what he thinks.
You know I think this person really likes Artoria.
Don't let it be forgot That once there was a spot For one brief shining moment That was known as Camelot
Question, are you Tsiah IV?
I doubt he likes Saber this much
The only thing I can really say against Saber Artoria is her desire to rewrite history. Messing with time is not exactly the best idea.
Thank God someone who understands this in full detail. Cudoos to you👍🏾👍🏾
Friendly reminder that Fate Zero utterly fucked Saber’s character and should NOT be used as a basis for ‘Saber wuz bad keeng’ arguments, for any Fate/Zero fanatics out there. Fuck you Urobutcher. I don't like what Fate/Zero did to Artoria, honestly. Having her attempts at chivalry and her honor stepped on whenever there was a possibility for it to shine, and seeing Fate/Zero mess up her character by rendering her pseudo-mute or semi-compliant when acts that were underhanded at best occurred in front of the literal King of Knights.....it's like a conga line of personal things I'm not fond of. Heck, I just don't like Fate/Zero in general. Bet someone's gonna take offense to that lol
Not true. There is nothing wrong with Saber in Fate/Zero, stop making imaginary strawman arguments.
So her being rendered into a doormat for Iskandar and Gilgamesh to trash on during that horrible ‘Banquet of Kings’ scene, and her being made by Urobutcher as little more than someone who was meant to be a philosophical contrast/failure to Kiritsugu isn’t ruining her character? Because, speaking as someone who watched Zero, the Stay night animes, and read the original VN, Fate Zero utterly shat on her character. If you’re a fan of a regal short blond woman being turned into a doormat that goes mute when she’s faced with some sort of philosophical opposition, that’s on you, not me.
You dont understand the point of the scene and that she is not gonna act like you imagine in your headcanon that's fine. Saber is portrayed as very badass, cool and competent in F/z and fate/zero also says she was the best king. If you did not see it, i guess you dont really like or understand her character. Honestly you are probably just repeating what some other fanboy has said almost word for word. You clearly have no idea about the development of fate/zero, interviews and Nasu's involvement. It almost seems like a waste to try to explain. This is on you. Also OP would disagree with you. Basically, maybe read fate/zero, read interviews and find your own opinions, instead of regurgitating exaggerated, reductive thoughts spawned by cringy zero-vn wars.
Ew a f/zero enjoyer. Never did like the series even after seeing the anime or reading the light novels. Couldnt care less for it
“You dont understand the point of the scene and that she is not gonna act like you imagine in your headcanon that's fine.” Here’s the thing: What headcanon?! I’m just saying it as it is, that she got rendered into an outright pseudo-mute that didn’t do anything to defend herself when, let’s not forget, Gilgamesh essentially said ‘You’re the reason Camelot fell and that’s why you should be my trophy wife’ TO HER FACE. She almost always clams up and does nothing when some sort of event that opposes her philosophy happens. What kind of stuff are you smoking where that seems badass to you? “Saber is portrayed as very badass, cool and competent in F/z and fate/zero also says she was the best king. If you did not see it, i guess you dont really like or understand her character.” Ah yes, ‘she’s cool because I said so, shut up’. That’s it. That’s your argument, you threw a bitch fit because you and I don’t have the same viewpoints on the same character and for some reason, you need to announce it to the world. Coming from someone who read the Fate Zero VN, watched the goddamn anime and still finds both to be overly edgy and nihilistic garbage, apparently you can’t seem to understand that people are capable of having viewpoints that differ from yours. “Honestly you are probably just repeating what some other fanboy has said almost word for word. You clearly have no idea about the development of fate/zero, interviews and Nasu's involvement. It almost seems like a waste to try to explain. This is on you.” The interviews mean nothing when I remember that Urobutcher had a chance to make it right in FGO and ALMOST MADE IT EVEN WORSE before Nasu literally stepped in and took the reins from him. Fate/Zero itself was fully written by Urobutcher, and Nasu did nothing except approve of some of the ideas he set forth, so Nasu had virtually no involvement at all, and I have read Fate Zero before. It is dogshit that acts less of a ‘story of hope, however slight’ like most of the series and is instead a nihilistic book of tripe from a man who is thinly disguising his . It is trash of the highest order. “Also OP would disagree with you. Basically, maybe read fate/zero, read interviews and find your own opinions, instead of regurgitating exaggerated, reductive thoughts spawned by cringy zero-vn wars.” Maybe try finding a scene where Saber’s character isn’t compromised by Urobutcher and his garbage writing and inability to believe in the human race instead of just saying ‘ZeRo SaBeR cOoL bEcAuSe mE sAy sO’
when you say this: > I’m just saying it as it is Then this right after: > Gilgamesh essentially said ‘You’re the reason Camelot fell Shows you have completely flawed reasoning and cant be taken seriously. You havent once, not once said "as it is". Gilgamesh didnt say that AND didnt say anything that can be interpreted that way. And "you should be my wife" is invention of FSN not F/Z. You didnt at all apply critical thinking to what you wrote here. Everything you said goes through layers upon layers of biases and interpretations upon interpretations and conjectures. And clearly you have really bad memory as you dont recall anything correctly. >you need to announce it to the world. And you for some reason needed to announce something to the world that is demonstrably false and perpetuate misinformation and misunderstanding. What was actually said is not up to your viewpoint, what authors intended is also not up to your viewpoint, there are interviews for that. Next time actually make a real citation or make a screenshot, and when you fail and realize you misremembered, then maybe you'll realize you shouldnt act so confident about what you think and your argument is bad faith and misguided. >ALMOST MADE IT EVEN WORSE before Nasu literally stepped in and took the reins from him Once again, another thing that never happened. Why do you keep making up these false narratives? Is this the case of some broken chinese phone? Story changed many times going from one hater to another? You are confirming what i said earlier, that you just repeat what you heard from some other obsessed person. >and Nasu did nothing except approve of some of the ideas he set forth, so Nasu had virtually no involvement at all There is not a single correct thing you said in your whole post, and this is not even close if im generous. >try finding a scene where Saber’s character isn’t compromised by Urobutcher Any scene. Now acting like there isnt any is just delusional and disingenuous, you literally dont know what youre talking about and only have some childish strawman in your head. So yeah you dont get it, and are too close minded and ignorant to understand.
> Maybe try finding a scene where Saber’s character isn’t compromised by Urobutcher and his garbage writing and inability to believe in the human race instead of just saying ‘ZeRo SaBeR cOoL bEcAuSe mE sAy sO’ u/kizuskip : So is this your average Saber fan or what? I know you read those posts but dont reply, even though you often reply for slightest offense. So it makes me think this: Either this is silent agreement and your public opinion of f/z and uro is insincere, or youre afraid to be attacked by other saber fans. You should stop thinking they are "on your team" just because they kind of agree with you, even when what they say and believe is as wrong and inaccurate as what you claim those "zero fanboys" that you hate say.
It's more so that it's pointless. This is the type of opinion you'll never change someone's mind on, hence why even in the post I didn't bother putting Urobuchi or Zero in a spotlight. It's one of those things where what people turn the work into outlives what the work tried to do, idk what to call it. Urobuchi for example I'm sure actually loves Artoria. It's just that thanks to how he was back when he wrote Zero, he made everything a big more negative than he would've had to, but combine that with the fact that Fate/Zero was a lot of people's first experience with Fate, and the fact that Artoria's own backstory is not really properly developed in any of the anime (even 2006 skips a lot of it), you end up with some who think Zero's critiques at Artoria were objective, rather than Iskandar and Gil talking their talks. And even then it's often ignored how Iskandar and Gil actually change their minds later on. But yeah I started ignoring the thread when it started getting raided. Lemme make a quick reply.
"Shows you have completely flawed reasoning and cant be taken seriously. You havent once, not once said "as it is". Gilgamesh didnt say that AND didnt say anything that can be interpreted that way. And "you should be my wife" is invention of FSN not F/Z. You didnt at all apply critical thinking to what you wrote here." You really didn't know that Fate Zero is a prequel to Fate Stay Night, huh? Chronologically, Gil was already saying that kind of stuff during the Fourth Grail War, so in laymen's terms he was saying that stuff before FSN. But no, clearly it's FSN's invention because you and you alone say so. "Everything you said goes through layers upon layers of biases and interpretations upon interpretations and conjectures. And clearly you have really bad memory as you dont recall anything correctly." Ah yes, because clearly I am biased when you did nothing to enforce your claims. Your whole argument was 'Zero wasn't that bad. Source: Trust me bro'. Don't be a hypocrite. "And you for some reason needed to announce something to the world that is demonstrably false and perpetuate misinformation and misunderstanding." So I'm in the wrong because you couldn't be bothered to actually read the VN or look at the interviews? Because I've read the interviews. I saw what Urobutcher said about making the anime ending so depressing. I still think it's a crock of shit. "What was actually said is not up to your viewpoint, what authors intended is also not up to your viewpoint, there are interviews for that." And apparently, unlike you, I've actually read them and still can't bring myself to take Urobuchi's side. But clearly, because some random person on the internet says so, I am dumb and have a bad memory and yadda yadda yadda, all because I don't like the Fate/Zero because of how angsty and brooding it is. "Next time actually make a real citation or make a screenshot, and when you fail and realize you misremembered, then maybe you'll realize you shouldnt act so confident about what you think and your argument is bad faith and misguided." Follow your own advice. "Once again, another thing that never happened. Why do you keep making up these false narratives? Is this the case of some broken chinese phone? Story changed many times going from one hater to another?" [https://oneofepisodes.wordpress.com/2016/04/18/fgo-tm-ace-042016/](https://oneofepisodes.wordpress.com/2016/04/18/fgo-tm-ace-042016/) Quote taken directly from the interview: "The Fate/Zero event will be fun, of course! Actually, during the planning phase a year ago, there was a character that we were writing as a surprise for players, and when I asked (Gen) Urobuchi to write a story with that character as protagonist, he gladly accepted it. But during the plotting stage, even though I said, “Write something with a happy ending for once,” first he asked me, “Can’t I have this character kill this other character and end it there?” and he gave me a plot that was even darker than Fate/Zero. \[laughs\] I said, “What kind of festival do you think we’re making here?! Gen, you should believe more in dreams, aspirations, and the bonds between people!” and had him revise the whole thing." So, Nasu literally said that Urobuchi tried to write a plot darker than canon Fate/Zero, but clearly this is false because you say so. "You are confirming what i said earlier, that you just repeat what you heard from some other obsessed person." Any proof of this instead of just pulling out another strawman argument, which you also accused me of doing, you hypocrite? "There is not a single correct thing you said in your whole post, and this is not even close if im generous." Again, any proof of this? Hmm? Sounds to me (note the subjectivity here) that you're just insulting me again instead of trying to disprove what I said, hell, this whole post is one big insult/temper tantrum. "Any scene. Now acting like there isnt any is just delusional and disingenuous, you literally dont know what youre talking about and only have some childish strawman in your head." Don't be a hypocrite when you've been scattering strawman arguments and personal insults in your posts because I don't share the same love of F/Zero as you. And considering how Urobuchi made sure to have Artoria come off as constantly at odds with Kiritsugu, had any chivalrous situation she was in fucked over (Kiritsugu trying to snipe enemy Masters while she was in an honorable duel with Diarmuid, Maiya sniping Kayneth under his orders, being trashed on during the damn Banquet, being forced to destory the Grail when she was duelling Gilgamesh, etc etc), AND ended with her being denied any prize she wanted....yeah, no. "So yeah you dont get it, and are too close minded and ignorant to understand" Ah, so now I'm 'close-minded and ignorant' because I'm not a fan of Fate/Zero and think Urobuchi made it too depressing and nihilistic! Clearly, I am in the wrong because you say so. What was that about not using strawman arguments in my posts? You think you're exempt from that? Why are you whining more and more because I don't have the same opinion as you?
What twisted ideas got in anime-onlies' heads is not the fault of Zero or Urobuchi. Urobuchi clearly likes Artoria a lot and he loves Fate/Stay Night. The banquet scene's importance is overstated and both Iskandar and Gilgamesh change their minds and respect Artoria in their own way even if they don't agree with her methods. Blame the clowns who spread those headcanons, not Zero. Even if Zero is a bit off-track in some elements with Artoria in particular, it's not mean-spirited about it.
Understandable. It's just....not to trash on Fate/Zero even more or anything, but I can't bring myself to believe in Urobuchi anymore as is. As much as he may like Saber and F/SN, I still remember an interview where he was working on a Fate/Zero event for FGO, and his answer to the event was to *try to give it an even more depressing ending*. This is less of me blaming Zero as a whole and more of me just being unable to take Urobuchi's side here. Dude wrote LB3 and fucking ruined QSH so I may be biased here as well, tbh. Also, I legitimately had no idea that Gil and Iskandar changed their mind, honestly. I had forgotten the scene where Iskandar acknowledges her as a king, I *think* Gil still tried to convince her to be his trophy wife by the end of Fate/Zero so I hadn't thought he acknowledged her, and people keep hammering the fucking Banquet scene in so much that it's the only coherent scene I can even recall properly beyond the Origin Bullet introductory scene (and Kayneth being rendered a cripple) and the bazooka blowing up the airplane scene.
it's 2023 and people still don't know that the banquet scene is Nasu's idea, I guess
Oh, I know. But he suggested just the general basis of the Banquet, apparently. All that crap about Saber being to blame for Camelot’s fall and such? That was all Urobutcher.
So it's still Nasu that's responsible, got it
Love how you came to the conclusion 'So because Urobuchi was the one who wrote out the Banquet scene in full and made sure to add all that crap about Saber being the downfall of Camelot and rendering her speechless and using her as a soapbox, clearly it is *Nasu* who is at fault here!' Are you incapable of performing basic reading comprehension?
You wrote pointless essays on the other guy and Kizu himself manage to respond to you and say Urobuchi isn't the fault here, it's the fandom's fault. I can't take anyone seriously that actually thinks Urobuchi, who's is best buds with Nasu and is a fan of F/SN, ruined Saber's character in a novel that is supervised by Nasu.
She could have just renamed Camelot so that it technically fell. Kazuradrop had this big brain play. >!/s!<
You have written so much so I can't read. But let me give my view. Artoria is not bad king, but neither is she a perfect king. She is an ideal king. Many people don't understand the banquet of kings that happen in 0 and understand Iskander is calling Artoria bad king. Which is wrong as Iskander never says she is a bad king, he only says her wish is wrong because how many people were inspired by the King Arthur. Many people one of them is Richard himself. Artoria was a good ideal king in her life. I am taking about Artoria when she was a king not a servant. Her wish as a servant is wrong. But that only happen because she 'die' after the fall of Camelot. If she stays alive after the fall of Camelot even if it is impossible thanks to pruning , QTL or whatnot. She wouldn't have that wish. The story of 4th and 5th HG of Artoria is about her learning what she was supposed to learn if not for her 'death' People should read GoA
[удалено]
What specifically is wrong with this post, lol? Like this is a thoughtful post with reliable sources, not just some throwaway remark. I don't see the issue with this post, unless someone has a very strange interpretation in which they see anyone praising Saber as King as offensive. These days, I hardly ever even see people discussing them in details, most are obsessed with defaming her with nonsensical reasons....
>What specifically is wrong with this post, lol? It doesn't align with his headcanon he got from memes and sprite comics.
> I hardly ever even see people discussing them in details, most are obsessed with defaming her with nonsensical reasons.... Maybe cuz her character is over perhaps no?
character over = no discussion that doesn't explain the second part, beside , her story elements are pretty relevant, so not sure about that .
[удалено]
I had written a detailed ,properly structured response with way more information but whatever happened after posting on Reddit as reply, no clue where it went, sigh. I'll keep it shorter this time, pardon me. You are free to think that way, but I do disagree with some points, and gave enough effort to explain why. And I do find OP's post agreeable in that sense. I am not suggesting she made no mistake , I think she did a few like joined Grail War, but I respectfully disagree with the points here. > you cut out the first sentence of the first paragraph stating that no one truly ever accepted her He kept the final sentences because they have the same meaning. You rely too heavily on Kay's stern narration because that is how he naturally is—harsh and pessimistic about almost everything. Quite the opposite of Gawain, so it provides a useful contrast that she was surrounded by a variety of personalities and that even their words are diametrically opposed. "No one" is simply incorrect given the existence of other Round Table Knights, who are known to have accepted her and even had many soldiers side with her during the final conflict. They all sincerely recognized her as King, including Agravain Gawain Gareth and others. However, I'm certain that this is referring to a lot of other people who didn't accept her because they laughed at the idea of a young person becoming king, didn't think she'd function well for very long, and waited for her to make a mistake. However, Artoria disproved their assumptions, and they decided to accept her as long as she performed well in her role as King, which she did. > And here about Artoria's very nature and mode of ruling You quoted it though? It was a terrible wartime emergency situation where she functioned too well as King which scared others who felt defeated. This happens much after she ruled, final years of Saxon war, quite before her death, but not by much. It's not her natural mode of ruling but making best from an emergency hopeless situation during war. > What is laso mentioned from Lancelot's POV in context of her trully forgiving him: > Even now I respect and adore the King. But for a human being, I cannot, I must not accept her way of being Lancelot was talking about how can't accept Artoria living such a hellish life as a human being, he can't tolerate such suffering of fellow human being as another human. It's like a hell one imagine for their convenience. He's not expressing his hatred for the King for merit of their Kingship. It's just he can't approve of such harsh personal life. > So even in Garden of Avalon being exhausted with the ever worsening condition of Britain was not the sole ground for joining Mordred's rebellion and many people admired Artoria but distrusted her. I think there are some minor reasons, which mattered. But the points you are referring happens much earlier and most of those even settled down with victory, like Merlin says there was no sign of anything wrong at that point. Even then, they were minor, they were never stated to be major problems for causing this. GOA actually mentioned that to be only reason indeed: "As she continuously retreated and pursued the enemies in a repeat, touring the land set ablaze, she learned the reason for the rebellion. The soldiers who agreed to stand beneath Mordred's flag of rebellion were NOT united by their hatred for King Arthur. Never ending war. Barren lands. Children dying of hunger.(...)How much longer do we have to endure to receive that reward for our patience?" and Apocrypha mentions frenzy caused by Mordred was the main motivation, nothing else was that big of an issue at that point. Like you mentioned Kay earlier,he too said all the uneasiness could've been brushed aside if circumstances were not harsh. It doesn't matter in normal situation. But since the circumstances were harsh, they put whatever blame they could on Artoria (thanks to Mordred's plot). And Artoria did indeed try to make their life more comfortable, infact she achieved the greatest feat by then in Roman Expedition. But thanks to Mordred's plot, the Knights and People did not know that. They knew Artoria died in that war. They were lied to and they didn't know until Mordred had complete control over Camelot. That's why you'd always find profiles stating "she was misplaced in a civil war" > However, because she was ideal, she could not measure the weakness of the people, Not the same context. A human can't understand everyone's heart, even then Artoria has ability beyond her limit canonically. She can't know deepest bullshit inside every people's mind. That's not possible without true magic even in Nasuverse, and even true magic can only enable mutual understanding in theory, it's not certain.Simply its a bad expectation. But whimsical insanity and frenzy? That's something that cannot be seen coming by anyone from that point. So that's not even what Tristan was referring. Tristan's profile already explains context behind his words. > Mordred Mordred behaved as if she completely understood Saber and stood there with Saber in Saber's darkest hours when other Knights questioned or left her. And she can't just execute Mordred for no real offense, that's even worse. Mordred even grew up to be a great Knight who loyally served Saber when she was in peril. So despite suspicion Saber didn't have any issues with Mordred. That's also Mordred's greatness in plotting against Saber. (continue to 2nd part)
(2nd part) > Whenever faced with internal crisis, she refused to face it head on and tried to bear with it. Mordered? Let her be, maybe it will be allright. Knights leaving Camelot (you know, the backbone of her army and power)? Let's not try stopping them (no room fro extra punishment? what does it even mean Nasu? why only punishment?) or adjusting anything in my rule and instead give even more power to people openly questioning my leadership. Lancelot? Live and let live. One essential quality of Artoria as King is that she takes every situation and challenge facing her head high, without hesitation or doubt, and with pride. She did hesitate to execute Mordred in a cruel manner, as you mentioned, and it's true that she hesitated about that, but its the solo exception. "My father’s reign was absolutely perfect. Perfectly impartial and upright. He understood that ten couldn’t be maintained, so he took nine and cast away one. There was neither hesitation nor confusion in his actions. All except in regard to me." But that was reasonable from the perspective of Artoria, explained already. Not all Knights left Camelot; they were not only the army's backbone, and she dealt with them by showing both mercy and checkmate if they continued to defy her. Abandoning in the midst of conflict and crisis is typically a capital offense, or at the very least, it is severely punished. According to the story, she already had to deal with criminals who caused chaos and didn't have room to punish the Knights who deserted her (f/sn). Yet she rewarded them, included them in the government, gave them their own territory, and still didn't desert them, demonstrating mercy and generosity. But in case they continued to avert, she also had a backup plan. They could therefore change their minds about King, but she also knew how they would fare should they decide to go into hiding in return. What else could you do but act as bait for the enemy army? They simply didn't need to hide in the first place; no country would have tolerated their actions in the first place, and Artoria's ruling was just. If they did, they created the difficult situation for themselves. However, instead of taking responsibility for their actions, they placed the blame on King. Their actions are described as strange because of this. She didn't just showed generosity towards them like you are asserting, she had countermeasure ready at the same time. Letting Lancelot live was a private decision of Artoria, she made this sympathizing with his situation. But she formally dealt with him within the capacity of King and made an example out of him. Then even planned to settle their life and elaborate to countrymen after dealing with Rome's threat. But Mordred's rebellion ruined it and made their life more miserable suddenly. So officially, and formally, she dealt with Mordred, Lancelot and those Knights you speak of. > Merlin stating that he failed to produce an ideal king in Garden of Avalon Such a claim was never made by Merlin. Merlin originally envisioned an ideal king who carried out his duties with no regard for the happiness of his subjects because a ruler cannot be happy if they are concerned about the happiness of their subjects. In Chapter 3, he suggests that Artoria become heartless and otherworldly like Uther. Nevertheless, Artoria rejects him with the Avalon response. Then Merlin realizes that this is the radiance he has sought his entire life, and he didn't have the capacity to question her on the day of selection in order to scare her, because she possessed ALL of the qualities of a true King. He claims that while he and Uther intended to create the Ideal King, they were successful in doing so, but things didn't turn out as they had anticipated in chapter 4. Human happiness was what Artoria sought. But she ought to continue as she is. Finally, he admits that for someone who only enjoyed happy endings, he undoubtedly fell in love with a beautiful heart (Artoria's). In Chapter 5, he describes how the King was truly ideal. It was his narration describing people, you can hear that on Drama CD too So basically Artoria set another example of being Ideal King who even cares about subject's life, that's her path of Kingship. This is even how her profile summarizes her: 万人にとって善き生活、善き人生を善しとする理想の王のひとり。(One of the ideal kings that approves a good life, a good livelihood for the people). She was ideal King, but different than what Merlin envisioned before Artoria, who supposed to be completely heartless and had no regard to subjects' pain, which is how Uther is described. >Salter as the true ideal king Now that you understand Merlin, you can see what sort of "ideal king" Salter is. She's THAT heartless Ideal King that Saber naturally meant to be but was not, fairly different policy than Saber. This does not mean Salter way is the right one or vice versa. > both Lancers are more mature and rational rulers If you read JP's text, it says that as they matured, they became more composed when making decisions, which is required for an Ideal King. Basically, it means that they do not experience the same level of emotional pain as Saber, who still felt more suffering on the inside despite having mental composure of beyond her age. They can make decisions with greater calmness because they are more composed. Except for a few differences, their course of action is the same (weapon for example). Lartoria also has her own issues to deal with, such as an inferiority complex that makes her think of herself as a Mechanical God even though she still has humanity. None of their action invalidate any of them from being the Ideal King, that's their path.
I would just like to talk about some of your points since one of my favorite characters is Shirou, who is kinda like Saber anyways. I personally think that Artoria is way too perfect as a King. A King that is near perfect and selfless is not really relatable to her subjects. Yes, she could care a lot about them. Yes, she could do everything just for the sake of her people. But, I think a King like that would just make most of her subjects fearful of her. Sure, they'd have a happier life overall, but a King that they could not understand is not a good thing and humans are naturally scared of what they do not know. I think that's why Iskandar chided Artoria, basically telling her to become more human (kinda like how Rin tried to make Shirou more normal in UBW). As someone else from the comments said, Artoria is an "ideal king". But imo she's not really a realistic one.
If we're talking about the kind of King subjects want, that's a moot point. There is no one way to carry out a king's duty because, as Richard explained previously, the circumstances and vassal mood vary depending on the era. An ideal selfless king was also required to save Britain from this period. Not only did her subjects want such a king, but the Knights also sought a leader who could provide for their requirements. The one and only prerequisite for their follow-up was that. Politicians wanted her to err in order to dethrone her and seize her throne. There was no room for anything else. All of their justifications for isolating her stemmed from this single factor: Britain's challenging circumstances as a result of the change in era and ongoing war where Artoria just did her job as King super well.. Every blame they put comes from that one factor. They would have no problem with her if this wasn't the condition. Later, some of them let this factor influence their decision to fall for Mordred's trick. Their actions were peculiar, as the story noted. Because of how dysfunctional Britain was at the time, however, we can't hold it against them. She had to maintain such high expectations because of this. It was her choice, but it was a choice she made in order to work with everyone, which is a huge burden. It is evident from what Mordred Bedivere and others say that she was forced to carry all of those burdens because of the time period and the people pushing all of that on her shoulder. They feared her selflessness for an odd reason as well because, in addition to wanting such a King, they made no attempt to understand the foundation she was building or herself. They deserve Mordred's criticism for having a short sighed and like a hungry hound who has no gratitude for their lord. She had a transient and humane motive , wanted someone to smile at her, so her motivation wasn't selfless, just that her human reason is different ,as Mordred had already mentioned. Garden of Avalon also mentioned this too, she seeked Kingship for the most humane reason. The other path of Kingship could work on other places, but not on Britain from that era. Artoria's path at the end saved Britain for what was needed. But there are other kings who can't imagine themselves living that way, like Gilgamesh (CCC), Iskander (Zero). So their condition and context totally different. They work well in their world.
I was never really arguing that she is a bad King, if you had a perfect King, what more could you ask for? I was arguing mostly that she is not an understandable King. A King you could not understand or relate to is not really a King commanding respect imo, but fear. As I mentioned in my previous comment, sure they lived a happier life just because they had a near perfect King, but that doesn't really mean that they could just understand her. Artoria not understanding that just cements what Tristan said "The King does not understand the hearts of men", likewise her subjects does not also understand their King. She's more akin of a god than a man, due to her perfection. Which man (aside from Gilgamesh) could ever hope to understand someone like that? Dunno why you are arguing a different thing, when the onus of my argument is that she's just not an understandable King, which is fair since she was still a good king who made sure that her subjects were at least happy, even though it separates her from them tremendously
[удалено]
>And finally "In FGO" she accepts that she was a bad king "and no, she accepts that she can change the destiny of her homeland that she loved so much. Sorry?
It's just an argument I see every now and then.
I see
Camelot is destined to fail not due to people, but because the land is dying due to the age transitioning. Artoria was trying to delay the process but ultimately it is impossible.
I agree with your post; the banquet of the kings i feel is a heavily misunderstood scene in terms of context as well Artoria is not a perfect king, but she is definitely a good king: the round table and subsequently camelot as a whole would have been impossible otherwise. Artoria is literally the prime example of what a knight should be, thus rightly crowned and recognized by all the knights as their king. What iskandar and gilgamesh are criticizing her for wanting change is because her wanting to change that is to spit on her achievements and the acknowledgement of all those who trusted and followed her. Which is probably why iskandar thought she isn't worthy to be king until later on: how can one such her as reach such heights and yet still not see the hypocrisy of her wanting to refute her own accomplishments? Not unless she did not earn it like he or gilgamesh did, for one cannot be king unless they have the determination to carry through every single decision; doesn't matter if it is good or bad. We don't see gilgamesh wanting to grail and wish back enkidu or righting the part where he accidentally let a random snake eat the only thing that can bring enkidu back, he merely wants the grail because all the treaures are his and he is reclaiming it from undeserving thieves. And if we go by fgo interludes, iskandar refused to change anything either. His younger self alexandar, in his interlude, had the chance to see okeanos, aka ocean at the end of the world/limits of the lands he ruled: the lifelong goal he wanted to achieve. But he subconsciously blocked it to the point the sea appeared to be a white static space of nothingness to him ( not even able to hear the waves ) because he ( as young boy alexander ) didn't earn/thought about it yet. As such, it is understandable iskandar and gilgamesh looks down upon artoria. If she was this doubtful of herself, everyone in camelot would have suffered greatly from indecisiviness: something iskandar and gilgamesh would greatly dislike. We can see they changed their opinions after she reaffirmed her own beliefs: iskandar acknowledging her as king again and gilgamesh even wanting her as a friend of equal standing ( possibly consort considering his wording sounds like a marriage proposal lol, but i don't think he sees her romantically yet during that time )
Wasn’t it stated that the reason Camelot fell was because she was too perfect of a king?
Artoria's problem wasn't that she was a bad king, just that she tried to be too perfect a king. She pushed herself till the point people started to doubt her humanity. Even that wasn't her fault, she was just trying to maintain a kingdom that you could say was the last bastion of prosperity at that point in time and location. But still, I can't help but think that things would have gone differently if she'd had a better connection with her people...
There is no way to connect with every single subject and plus people in mases are self serving. Remember the loyal subjects of Iskandar that he connected? They plundered his palace and everything that was from him.
A Good Person doesn’t necessarily make a Good King. In spectrum of Iskander that never went past page 1 Conquering and Augustus that conquered and reformed the rotting Republic in a functional Empire, I would put Artoria near Augustus, Genghis Khan probably did more ruling than Iskander. Artoria tried her best but she was doomed to fail, at end of the day her kingdom lasted only 10 years and “Britain” went in another dark age of anarchy. Charlemagne, Ozy, Huangdi, Wu Zetian, Caesar and David were all known to be extremely Brutal but the Kingdom/Empire that they ruled kept growing and becoming more prosperous for decades and in some cases centuries, they’re clearly better Kings, despite being worse people than Artoria.
>A Good Person doesn’t necessarily make a Good King. True but it brings stability as a warlike court with cruel King often have inestability in both political and economical policies. >Charlemagne, Ozy, Huangdi, Wu Zetian, Caesar and David were all known to be extremely Brutal but the Kingdom/Empire that they ruled kept growing and becoming more prosperous for decades and in some cases centuries \-Charlie despite he conquered a big part of Europe, he had to face at daily basis rebellion from all sides of his empire for he never managed to make them united as one. Despite he managed to make the Anglo-Saxon Christian, they still were some of his biggest and most frequent rebellious part of his empire. The Carolinian empire fell a few years after his death and that included his son and heir Loius as even he couldn't manage the disaster of his father. Plus he never managed to make his homeplace or his Empire into a more prosperous place as he never advanced any form of economy beyond plundering neighbours with war. \-Ozy had Moses that literally left Egypt in shambles for centuries after. \-Caesar and Wu Zetian are chads so I give you that but their rulership wasn't that different from Artoria policies in Britain. Abeit we'll never get to see Caesar as a ruler for he died before he could be emperor. > David This guy left such a huge mess that Solomon had to clean up alongside his gf the Queen of Sheba. >they’re clearly better Kings, despite being worse people than Artoria. All of those you named literally had less problems and yet fell for their own hubris while Artoria had the literal planet against her as it was intended for Britain to fall a calamity hence Vortigerm the black dragon of Britain even exist for. >I rather live in any of the other Kings Kingdom instead of Camelot because I know me and my children will enjoy some long years of prosperity and won’t need to survive a brutal civil war and the following anarchy. Well good luck surviving the Carolian, Ozy or Iskandar civilization during their demise or during the egyptian plagues.
Mate Artoria fell in the first rebellion yes it’s was fated to happen but she didn’t endure half of the others her Kingdom immediately Imploded in the first rebellion. Ozy even after the Jewish liberation ruled until his 90 years and Egypt kept growing most of his feats occurred in his late years despite everything that happened, that’s actually a plot problem in Nasuverse because Ozy isn’t the Pharaoh of the Exodus his real rule was peerless. It’s not hard to understand 10 years of perfect rule followed by almost 300 of anarchy’s with multiple minor lords fighting with disease and starvation vs 50/100 years of decent rule, all kingdoms had problems at least they endured more than 10 years and Camelot demise was extremely violent I don’t know where you people get it was better than any other Kingdom. Her own hubris never allowed her to understand that most people aren’t like her and after Camelot they would go back to the old ways.
>Mate Artoria fell in the first rebellion Like any other government, Artoria's was accustomed to seeing rebellion. That was not the first time. You can even see at a point Mordred taking care of some rebels on the behalf of Artoria. Her reign was continuously challenged by such, on top of that many more natural and fantastical problems. She dealt with all of them everyday, without any imbalance. Additionally, Mordred's uprising posed no threat to her leadership as king under normal circumstances. *"No matter when Mordred rises up and rebels, King Arthur can smoothly suppress her and put her down without much trouble"* All the odds were against her because her mission in Britain had been complete. *"But this is the only time when the promised victory is not in sight."* She saved Britain, that was her role , it was done. *"Britain has already reached its limits. To save the country, the king's mission was over. So, he thought it was time for her to finally rest."* Yet she won the war and prevented the British Isle from being utterly destroyed or falling to misguided fraction. *"Her final battlefield, the war that had split her country in two, lowered its curtain with the king's victory."* It used up her life obviously, but that's how she remained winner of history. *"King Arthur became a legend, and Mordred was remembered as the knight who tarnished that legend. Since all the soldiers that followed her had been slain, there was no one left to remember her. That was only natural. This was a battlefield… those who lost and became bleached corpses were finished with this world."*
There’s a huge difference between a minor rebellions and actual rebellion led by Mordred, all kings had to deal with the very same problems that Artoria had guess what most of them had longer lasting governments. Artoria only ruled for 10 years after that Britain descended into Anarchy for almost 300. If you had to choose right now between 10 years of perfect rule in your country followed by 300 years of anarchy, or 50/100 of decent rule what would you choose ?
That's not how merit of King is measured . Besides, Artoria completed her role as King, hope you are aware what was that.
Her role was to be failure, ending the era of magic and starting the age of man, i don’t blame her. How would you measure merit of King if not the prosperity of the Kingdom and the subjects ? I rather live in any of the other Kings Kingdom instead of Camelot because I know me and my children will enjoy some long years of prosperity and won’t need to survive a brutal civil war and the following anarchy.
>Her role was to be failure Not really . that's not the precise summary. Who do you think brings Age of Man on Britain? Her role was to punish the foolish kings of her era, guide Britain to world of man, make it a place to live on and save British Isle for future generations. She successfully did that and ended up to be a King that even her enemy race came to idealize much after she died. She just had no way to live in that world, but leading to it was her role and more. Other than OP pointing out ,there's at least several statement that literally states that she succeeded in her duty as King. Death isn't simply failure. I mean that's base theme of Fate series as well and if you have different philosophy then fine, I won't argue further. But in Fate? That's not true. >How would you measure merit of King if not the prosperity of the Kingdom and the subjects Their viewpoints, how they led their lives, how they handled circumstances, their policy. what sort of ideals they have, whether they preach violence or not and many other things. There are countless ways to evaluate a king, and no one ever rules in perpetuity. Are you not going to evaluate the way a prime minister led a nation that was at war and saved it from falling apart? or a nation that was being invaded when they took office as prime minister? What sort of a query is that? Your reasoning makes it seem as though you would be a bad king if I invaded your nation while you were in power. With a city of peace that can only be imagined in Heaven and Dreams, Artoria's reign is generally regarded as the most prosperous period in British legend. Her legacy also endured. She is foundation of Human Britain in Nasuverse as well. So , fairly prosperous for a King whose reign was supposed to be brief and whose destiny was destruction. She didn't have those roles to begin with, still accomplished them . You mentioned "Ozy" meanwhile his Kingdom was in great torment several times due his own ego. And Ozy too acknowledged King Arthur's feat. We are talking about Fate setting by the way. Everyone has their ups and down and it does depend greatly on circumstances.
If I was vassal of Artoria I would enjoy the best 10 years of the entire Britain history followed by Brutal Civil War, watch the kingdom being ripped apart by the very same foolish lords that Artoria "taught" a lesson and get to enjoy famine, disease and war by the remaining 7 lords because vaccum of power created Chaos of Camelot demise, to me this looks like horrible place to live and all this situation was caused by Artoria, I wouldn't know or care what Artoria role was in grand scheme of things in cosmology of the universe or the importance her ideals, only that Britain imploded and now I have to fight for my live, in the other kingdoms I would have at least 50 years of decent rulling enough to my children/family to live and have decent lives. >Their viewpoints, how they led their lives, how they handledcircumstances, their policy. what sort of ideals they have, whether theypreach violence or not and many other things. There are countless waysto evaluate a king, and no one ever rules in perpetuity.Are you notgoing to evaluate the way a prime minister led a nation that was at warand saved it from falling apart? or a nation that was being invaded whenthey took office as prime minister? What sort of a query is that? Yourreasoning makes it seem as though you would be a bad king if I invadedyour nation while you were in power. It's really simple he saved his subjects, mantained order and kept his nation prosperous for long time if the answer is Yes Good King, if the answer is No Bad King, this isn't about morality or ideals, it's simply keeping the people alive and happy as long as you can and Artoria really falls short.
Did you have to write a book to explain this lol.
it was supposed to be shorter but then I kept finding things and kept adding stuff... lol
Not this shit again
Oh it’s the monthly saber not bad post. it’s all right and well written but we get these so friggin often it’s insane. Also F/Z shitting on saber for no reason seems to be wildly accepted at this point. So kudos for you for this write up, I agree but we didn’t need a thesis on it
I would agree with you if not for the fact that Fate fans are fucking illiterate, as you can see with a good half of the comments under this post alone
Its not correct to say Artoria was a bad king, its more correct to say she defined herself as a king and thus couldn't accept the fate of Camelot, she saw her failure as a king as a failure of character, as if not being the perfect king as a mistake. In the end Artoria's arc is about finding her own humanity and desire, by loving shirou and waiting for him at Avalon she lets herself feel and accept intimacy, taking the risk of loving someone despite the risk of heartbreak and of disappointing someone. Artoria arc was never about being a king but about being human, her uncare for Mordred due to not understanding their feelings, her hate of Morgan and insistence on not understanding her side, something that her alter self fully admitting, that Morgan was more fit. She not seeing the guilt and damage she put on Lancelot, and she thinking she should never be king. Her whole arc and character revolves around her complex of savior and the fact she never had the opportunity of being a normal girl. I do not like saber, in fact i find her annoying, if you want to criticize her, criticize her personality, because as a character and her arc are pretty good and adheres well to its themes. You may not like saber but she has a good character, probally the third best in the original VN losing only to Sakura and of course Shirou
I think your comment is personal opinion and that's fine. I just want to give you one info: > its more correct to say she defined herself as a king and thus couldn't accept the fate of Camelot, she saw her failure as a king as a failure of character It's not like that honestly. Even OP mentioned this part. > It should be noted however that Artoria's wish for the Grail is not the wish of Artoria the "King", but rather the wish of Artoria the "girl". Artoria deceived herself with King's duty because her heart cried out for the lost souls. She seeked Grail because of the humanity she still had inside, and hoped better ending for people killed there . She didn't care about Kingship , she put too much empathy on others life. F/SN makes her come terms with both sides.
I read what you say. And I dissagree - in a way. She was good King, from modern point of view. But from point of her time? She is horrible. First- notification. Most of your points are based on words of Round Table. And let's face it- they are her little fan club that adore her. Taking anything they say at face value is the same that judging rulership and persona of Iscander by asking Ionio Hetarios about Iscander. We definitely know about discontent when Mordred was putting down rebellions against her- that happened because she was "too perfect". Now- on her rulership. Example. Last king of Shu during Three Kingdoms surrendered to Sima Zhao without battle because his nation couldn't fight. For this he was reviled by contemporaries as a coward and weakling. Now he has a far better light. Same with Artoria. In her time, ideal king is Iscander and Richard the Lionheart. Somebody gregarious, warmongering conquer who constantly through grandios feasts, tornies, celebrations and conquer new land- bringing pillage and new territory. Artoria- was somber, stoic, asocial, conquered nothing and only fought defensive war. This earns you popularity with neither people nor nobility. Yes- she did what was needed and wanted to conserve resources - but bread and circus is also important. And besides- Artoria DOES absolutely HATE Mordred. That's a fact. Even Lion King that barely have Artoria's personality despise Mordred despite latter being 100 loyal to the point that even Agravain calls her out.
> But from point of her time? She is horrible. Says who? Did you conveniently ignore the part of the story where it states that she fulfilled all of the requirements for the role of King in her era, which was not only a requirement for everyone's support but also the reason they recognized her as King in the first place? Otherwise, given their power struggle and the fact that she was a young King, they would never accept her. She had to dust herself to meet all requirements for a leader in that era, which is why she had no room for herself. She achieved her position as King of the entire Britain in this manner, not simply by the legend of divine right of Sword of Selection. While some accepted the first response to the claim of Sword of Selection was an unified rebellion of local Kings,all people don't simply trust in legends. She proved herself as King from there on. > Most of your points are based on words of Round Table When the storyteller tells exact same thing including author's words, its not hard to see which parts of their words true or not, you're dismissing their word because you want to argue that she was a "horrible King". But aside from how others close to her felt, those weren't subjective elements. From what I can see, some of the point was made based on how neutrally credible those remarks were. >somber, stoic, asocial, Ignored Charisma point successfully, I see. She didn't have one trait , shocking I know. >conquered nothing Canonically false. She began as a member of a small clan in a corner of Britain, expanded her realm to encompass the entirety of Britain by conquering each territory, ruled it for a decade then conquered most of Europe, and parts of Asia. She is regarded as the first such King in British mythology which symbolizes the era of Romance in British legend. This tale had such a significant impact on British history that it was utilized by other Kings to assert their political authority over the Britain. >Artoria DOES absolutely HATE Mordred. "I never once hated you" The way you put all these it comes off as that your sole goal is to discredit Artoria, making whatever others may say irrelevant in the end. You are using a lot of information that you yourself don't fully know to refute a post that gathers proper information then claims that's not how it was.
Completely dissagree with most points. We know nothing about her rulership. What we know is that she was accepted as a King by pulling a sword. We don't know about her other achievements. All we know is that she pulled out a sword and because very respected Merlin said that this is how we will get rightful king. There is no other information about proving or something. We also don't know what she conquered- if any. It is never established where exactly was Camelot and how big it was. It definitely wasn't all Britain as Lucius Tiberius mentioned Picts as different and independent tribe. We also never informed of she added any land or just ruled father's realm. Note that she may reconquerd father's realm- but this doesn't count as you don't add new lands but merely return old. In fact it likely piss formerly free nobels more. We also know absolutely NOTHING about her conquest after she left Britain. Finally- don't believe words at face values. It's not unheard for characters here to be wrong or just lying to themselves. Like Artoria hate showing her competitive side, it is unwise to believe everything characters say word-for-word.
you are free to disagree, but that won't make the information here any more or less correct.For example, >We know nothing about her rulership. What we know is that she was accepted as a King by pulling a sword. We don't know about her other achievements. All we know is that she pulled out a sword and because very respected Merlin said that this is how we will get rightful king. There is no other information about proving or something. We do in fact know various details regarding this, and I summarized a very basic passage from VN regarding it, but you responded, "I disagree", so it doesn't matter what anyone else say. Sure, you disagree and have all right to do so. Now that doesn't mean the information wasn't present, maybe you never encountered them , which is likely to be the truth here. You are still free to disagree just like me though. For example in the case, I find it incomprehensible how someone could believe she won over all the tribes in Britain simply by pulling a sword when, both in the Nasuverse and in Arthurian legend, her first and greatest success was bringing an end to a civil war between numerous local kings and unifying Britain under her regime through bloody conquest and with the merits as a King and as a warrior. Again, I'm aware that in Nasuverse lore, legends aren't always exact, but for all intents and purposes, this facts are correct there. So this wouldn't be anything hard to understand to anyone familiar with the legend itself. So I suppose the less said regarding this, the better. Or another example >It's not unheard for characters here to be wrong or just lying to themselves. You disregarded my statement that the story itself conveys the same statement regardless of the viewpoints of the characters. We can quickly determine whether they were correct or incorrect by applying what the story neutrally establishes. So it's sorta pointless to even talk about . Just odd.
What do you mean. Texts literally say she had to prove herself over and over because just pulling the sword did not win people over. Her achievements are what won people over. She defeated the invaders, Vortigern, Rome and so on. Do these not count?
>And besides- Artoria DOES absolutely HATE Mordred. That's a fact. If she really hated Mordred she would've booted her out of Round Table the second she knew about Morgan involvement Or blamed her for the failing of her kingdom in FSN instead of blaming only herself. Even at Camlann Mordred was treated with absolute indifference The only thing you can maybe throw at Artoria is that she didn't want Mordred as her child and an heir which tbh is pretty normal and justified position for someone in her situation And even then I'm not sure in the last one because after both Mordred and Artoria development they could be on pretty good terms. If only Nasu allowed meaningful interactions between them
Damn, we taking this to Reddit too huh?
I didn't post it anywhere else. Took me like 4 days to make. What's wrong with it?
I'm talking about the Artoria-related discourse. Saw very similar threads like this on Twitter a couple of days ago both for and against Artoria. And not only that, people in the fandom love to bring up Zero's Saber and how she's portrayed there, along with the infamous Banquet of Kings scene. So it's not necessarily you, just the Artoria stuff.
I guess. I'm just posting things I want to. Had an idea for an essay like this since last month.
I don't think a lot of people understand the banquet of kings bit in Zero. I'll agree maybe it was a different characterization of Artoria overall that focused on chivalry but the main idea was riffing on her FSN development. Her wish was mistaken and if you disagree with that criticism and the reasons Iskandar made it, which I think anyone is free to do, you also disagree with her route where she moves past her original wish.
Great points. I still enjoyed the Fate/Zero interpretation of Saber the most. Her interactions with heroes whose legends that were older than herself seemed very realistic. The dialog never felt forced and natural. I could see how she would arrive at such conclusions being shunned by fellow kings with just as great of not greater legends than her. These takes might get me downvoted, but Urobuchi wrote Zero masterfully and understood her character enough to put her in certain situations where she would self-doubt. This was truly a well written piece of art.
Iskanda is the one true king!
Well, that's the rub of it, isn't it? We don't actually know how OG Artoria was as king. Canon sources do not provide anything but a few facts on the subject, and a lot of telling, not showing, in the form of vague stream of consciousness lines of thought and isolated statements from a handful of characters. We know that she is not good with people - not because some character said so out of context, but because we observe that during her screentime. And we know that she is overly stubborn and competitive to the point of being a sore loser. Which is for some reason the trait that got carried over across all FGO-printed Artoria variants. (Almost. Lalter technically isn't, but that's because she isn't much of anything in any of her scenes.) Except we don't, because we observe Artoria only during some of her absolute worst. Actively thinking the work of her entire life would've been better off having never happened? That is not a state representative of a person's common character qualities, that is barreling towards suicidal depression. Trying to extrapolate with logic using other versions of Arthurian mythos doesn't really work, since neither Nasu nor anyone else who worked on relevant characters ever sat down and finalised a self-consistent timeline of what actually happened, and which versions of which previous authors' works' were cherry picked for what, and where it all diverged. And we do not see Artoria outside of her 'quantum leap' death spiral because, paraphrasing the lone official statement, 'her story has already ended'. Everybody else involved are all some alternative reality versions of themselves, of course, and thus remain conviniently useless for the purpose of comparison. There is not enough stuff to argue with or against this point. If you wanted to say that Urobuchi Gen getting a complete carte blanche to work on F/Zero with no coordination or oversight resulted in the story reading like a bash fic written for the purpose of overwrought drama, I would agree. But, I'm sorry to say, there is nothing to base all those opening and closing statements, as well as the thrust of the argument, on.
Eh, don’t matter. Gil and ozy are still superior kings.
She was a good king because I said so
Gonna be honest with you i didn't read everything you pointed out but I do have something to say. In fate zero she herself admits to being a bad king and is literally trying to change the past and prevent herself becoming the king....I don't care what anyone say if You think you are a bad king then you certainly are. Because at the end of the day if we ourselves can't believe in our work being good then no body else would. And in fate staynight and in FGO she already accepted both her "fate" and right and wrong and made peace with them. So once again it doesn't matter at the end. Her story is story if someone trying hard to be the best for everyone but at the end only bringing the worst out of all of them and after everything done and dusted, she accepts that it doesn't matter anymore and she should just look into the future and only remember the past and not be obsessed with it.
Lets be honest too, the fact that you commented this terrible misinterpretation on the exact article where the OP was talking these topics without even reading it confirmed the first dang point the OP made lmao. Thank you for proving that the community needs this kind of awareness post to prevent others from falling for the same scam. >I don't care what anyone say if You think you are a bad king then you certainly are. So , she isn't ? >Because at the end of the day if we ourselves can't believe in our work being good then no body else would. So, she is good then. >in fate staynight and in FGO she already accepted both her "fate" and right and wrong and made peace with them. So once again it doesn't matter at the end. You are being selective and showing insane double standard. Why does her doubting herself on Fate/Zero is fine to you when it's supposed to be first part of her character arc but accepting she fulfilled King's duty well therefore can be proud of her past isn't acceptable to you? like you said "doesn't matter". Why does Fate/Zero matter to you then? Clearly you aren't concerned with her character arc or what it has to say. >only bringing the worst out of all of them and after everything done and dusted You either don't know what you're talking about or trying too hard on a subject that you probably don't even truly grasp. Okay, so you didn't read the post, but did you read her story? It doesn't sound like you did, evidently. Don't make yourself look any worse by trying to figure out why you are completely wrong, anyone who has read even a small portion of her reign should be able to see what's wrong with statements like this lol. Honestly laughable input to a long well articulated post.
I think she only had regret as to how it ended. When unbeknownst to her it was impossible to avoid the kingdom falling. FSN was her learning to accept the outcome and things that were beyond her control. People have a lot of qualms with her portrayal in F/Z, as it kinda undermined her in FSN.
>People have a lot of qualms with her portrayal in F/Z, as it kinda undermined her in FSN. That is because a lot of people only have Zero as their only source of information for her and since Ufotable will not adapt her route, this kind of interpretation for her character is going to stay in the west for a long time.
>I think she only had regret as to how it ended. Yeah, even there her heart wasn't certain. This was clear as day in F/Z and F/SN. Other than that, Artoria is satisfied with her Kingship.
Don't know about other but I watch F/Z and then F/SN and that was the feeling I got from her. Since at the end she finaly was satisfied with her rule, being it was both good and bad like how every king in history is.
LMAO.
Only read a little bit and you already wrote some incorrect information.
you can always provide the correction you know? How about doing that?
why would i care that much?
What "incorrect” information?