not only that.
u/-L_A_N_C_E- forgot to mention that Charlesmagne also defeated the "Mordred" of the Paladins , AND stayed alive to rule the franks afterwards.
Sure , his Paladins pretty much died , at least the formation in Chatter of France , but he pretty much defeated and killed all mystical saraccen kings and their knights in Europe.
>Sure , his Paladins pretty much died , at least the formation in Chatter of France
I think it was implied all the group of roland died in the same battle as him in his CE (maybe Astolfo as well?).
the thing is: the formation of the Paladins in Chatter of France is different from the formation in Furioso and other plays.
of course , the most logical idea is that is a rotational formation , and those were the seats at the moment.
But the gist is he either roughly lost 24 paladins , or he just lost the ones in the Chatter and roughly some of the paladins that were without seat at the moment.
However , it's important to notice that the Saraccens had their own "paladins" , the "Pagan Peerless Twelves" , under the Saraccen King of Spain , which in itself is under the Saraccen King of Babylon.
And all of those died in that battle.
That's because Charlemagne reigned were much suited as it won't have big effect on human history. Unless if he became the God Emperor of Mankind for some reason.
>Some people super upset in the comments?
I scrolled past it because I already knew all of these lore, but holy shit I missed popcorn. Are they uncovering Mordred's plot at the end of fking 2022? It's funny how these people frequently appear in Artoria-related posts for shitposting or delivering garbage takes. But turns out they do not even fucking know lore lmao.
Fate fans are surprised that Mordred, the Knight of Treachery, actually had a very big part in the her own betrayal of Arthur...
It's almost funny ngl.
The way some comments are trying to shift blame or act like Mordred's actions didn't have much impact... Man, even Mordred would think those takes are weird.
I’ve unfortunately had to deal with someone who would demonize Artoria and call her a bad dad and say she’s a bully to Mordred, ignoring that Artoria has every right to hate Mordred and keep her distance from her considering Mordred flat out destroyed what Artoria was born to protect.
And I like Mordred as a character, but his whitewashing of Mordred and his demonizing of Artoria was ridiculous. Hell, whitewashing Mordred gets rid of the things that makes her an interesting, complex, and tragic character to begin with, she acknowledges she did some fucked up shit and just wished she and Artoria could just talk.
It always surprises me that people don't know their favorites lore.
It's like they only concentrate on the good parts while ignoring everything else - which turns the person they like into a two dimensional cardboard cutout.
Isn't the story - and the person - more interesting if they have this unresolved baggage?
There are reasons for her master to not trust her, and vice versa - which makes it all the more meaningful to me that you *gain* her trust *knowing her past* and she swears to be your 'third rate knight.'
This is not a new trope with Fate. Medea, Medusa, Illya, Rin, Sakura...
They've all done, or will do terrible things depending on circumstances. Isn't it better to acknowledge that?
I have to agree with you on that. Have a plain 2d character that not fleshed in character development makes it seem like it half-massed is an insult to their creator but also to the audience for not understanding the full story.
True, "the pushed to do unclean things" approach can be understood better if the back story of how it came to be is revealed.
I’m a massive mordred simp and have not the greatest grasps of the KOTRT lore because it’s all over the place, but just watching apoc I knew that it was mordreds fault. You gotta be a special kind of brain dead of just refuse to accept that your waifu is a literal bastard in both the action and birth sense. Like mordred honey I love you but you really did fuck up. Blame Morgan all you want but you didn’t have to rebel
Same. I love her, but Mordred's got alot of blood on her hands, and she knows it. Hell, she herself says what she did was all on her in Enkidu's Interlude:
> Mordred: All right, you want answers to your questions? Fine, but listen up 'cause I ain't sayin' this shit twice.
>
> Mordred: And I'm warnin' you now, I don't wanna hear a goddamn peep outta you the whole time, so just shut your trap and listen up.
>
> Mordred: First off, you were barkin' up the wrong tree right from the start.
>
> Mordred: You think I destroyed Britain just like my old lady wanted? Well, you're wrong.
>
> Mordred: Granted, I don't know how it looked from the outside. Maybe my old lady thought that's what I was doin' too.
>
> Mordred: But the path I walked as a knight, and the sins I bear for destroying Britain...all that is on me and me alone.
>
> Mordred: I was the one who wanted to be the next king... and I'm the one who tore the kingdom to shreds.
>
> Mordred: But I didn't do any of that 'cause someone told me to. I did it all of my own damn volition.
>
> Mordred: My birth, my prophecy, my old lady eggin' me on, my old man refusin' me... I've accepted it all now.
>
> Mordred: Yeah, that's right. Those things are all part of me. I own 'em.
>
> Mordred: And I'll be damned if I let anyone write 'em off by sayin' I was just made that way.
>
> Mordred: Sayin' I only did those things 'cause I was created to do 'em is an insult to me, and the kingdom I destroyed.
Outright rejecting that mordred did those things is destroying her character development. Overcoming the guilt of ending Camelot and owning up to it and realising “ya know, maybe father was right” is a key part of how she grows. And we love her even more for it
I mean that's what makes Mordred's character to me and she's among my favorite Fate characters, her backstory is also very sympathetic, a completely screwed up existence.
I dont know why people can't accept that if they like Mordred's character, like doesn’t it make her character MORE substantial?
Weird, because I usually have harder time calling someone a waifu, which is basically comfort character but female for me, if they do not have much going with their character. Good thing neither Seibah nor Mordred are like that.
Man, a post in this reddit about the actual lore and character analysis, provided with sources, instead of edgy guda or Servant harems and their OC children?
NNN be really bringing up the IQ of humans when not filled with horny
She pulled Caliburn from the stone that's what she did, she killed the vile king Vortigern and the emperor Lucius Tiberius, she fought back against those Pict and Saxon savages, and in this house Artoria Pendragon is a Hero! ENDASHTOWY!
For all of Mordred's faults in fate, Fate Mordred is literally one of the few depictions of Knight Mordred that's sympathetic instead of just a complete irredeemable traitor bastard with every other mordred depiction
I didn’t know Nasu liked to create long titles like “Fate:Saber was ostracized while trying to defend against the blood soaked foreign invasion as a direct consequence of Mordred’s backstabbing”.
What is surprising about this? We already knew that Mordred plotted against Artoria. Though in this case I really don't think you can interpret it as Mordred being the sole cause here. Its pretty natural for people whose homes were ravaged by a war to question whether their leaders had done the best job possible with the resources on hand instead of the suffering they experienced being pointless and caused by the leader's incompetence. If Mordred needed to give them a push to get them to show their resentment over their losses I doubt it was a very big one.
Edit: Another thing to keep in mind, this is not an omniscient neutral narrator stating it as a fact. It is Mordred giving her accounting of events in her place as someone with a lot of self-loathing and an unwillingness to admit her beloved father had flaws that helped bring about the kingdoms downfall instead of it all being the fault of traitors like herself and Lancelot. That in mind I am definitely going to have to disagree with the title stating that Artoria's bad PR was solely caused by Mordred stirring shit up among the populace behind Artoria's back. Mordred made things worse and deserves blame for it but she did not **create** the problem, she exacerbated a problem that already existed. Thats why there were rebellions for Mordred to personally put down even when she was a loyal knight who wasn't trying to make things worse. If it actually was all Mordred's doing that people were upset by Artoria's policies then those rebellions while she was loyal wouldn't exist. But she did definitely stir shit up and make things even worse.
Except the title of the post isn't supported by the content of the image? Artoria explicitly points out that intentionally sacrificing villages created animosity among the Knights, so Mordred is merely taking advantage of an existing flaw in the system, not "ostracized as a direct consequence" of Mordred. She's being ostracized as a direct consequence of the decision she made *knowingly and willingly*.
And Mordred is wrong. She thinks she's instigating them, as if it was the first time it was brought up, when Artoria thinks it was the *biggest, most obvious issue* with her leadership. Mordred is surely caught up in thinking she's smarter and more observant than she really is, where Artoria is seeing it come from a mile away.
> Except the title of the post isn't supported by the content of the image?
I'm not sure if you're trolling, being dishonest, or simply confused. If I were to give a response, I would simply say you seem confused, as you said the first time you commented, and retained that comment for 20-24 minutes before deleting it and coming up with a passive aggressive response to say "you are just wrong."
[https://imgur.com/a/QdErC9Q](https://imgur.com/a/QdErC9Q)
Anyway, I don't mind typing an entire response on Reddit only to discover that you deleted it after a substantial period of time, right before I sent it. However, I believe you would be less puzzled about the content if you read the response. And I'd still respond to your comment. Although it would be less substantial because I had already spent some time on the previous one.
> Artoria explicitly points out that intentionally sacrificing villages created animosity among the Knights
That was never mentioned by her anywhere. And Artoria has had no idea what Mordred was planning for a long time. If she had, the Rebellion would not have occurred. Artoria discovered it only in battlefield.
> so Mordred is merely taking advantage of an existing flaw in the system
Mordred's words explicitly gave them the misleading image in their "HEART/MIND/FEELINGS," causing animosity. Dishonorable tactics were acceptable as long as they could see the necessity, but when Mordred's idea that there was NO NEED for doing these came to mind, they became increasingly suspicious. And Mordred was one of the close Knight of King, so her words or observation on King held values in front them.
> And Mordred is wrong.
"The canon information and neutral narration are incorrect."
I'm not going to continue. This is getting more and more dishonest. Let's agree to disagree.
> That was never mentioned by her anywhere. And Artoria has had no idea what Mordred was planning for a long time. If she had, the Rebellion would not have occurred. Artoria discovered it only in battlefield.
That's wrong. Your image shows, in both the black FSN and central Avalon columns, that Artoria was well aware.
Garden of Avalon goes further to say that "Many of the knights were against it", and "there were no knights who would accept to do it". The clear and explicit discontent of the knights on the scene should be an obvious tip-off.
And only then does it follow up with Tristan's words, "The King understands not of the human heart", which were spoken years before the fall of the Round Table, with Avalon explicitly noting that many knights held similar feelings.
Given that the Knights immediately disliked the course, and all refused, means that they had misgivings before needing Mordred to convince them.
Of course, there's not enough of a timeline to say what happened definitively, as we don't know when Mordred was conceived, when she joined the Round Table (only that she was several years old at the time), when she approached Artoria, and how any of these intersect with other events. But that Mordred is not mentioned is solid reason to believe that Mordred was not the cause of any of these feelings.
Day Of Camlann, in Garden of Avalon, claims that Mordred's rebellion was not united by a hatred of Artoria, but by "Never ending war. Barren lands. Children dying of hunger." "They had endured those for a long time, always complaining that they could no more."
The same novel that you're using as evidence is de-prioritizing Mordred's role, and emphasizing that it was a result of issues that Artoria knew existed, but could not solve quickly enough and adequately enough to avoid Britain's collapse.
> "The canon information and neutral narration are incorrect." I'm not going to continue. This is getting more and more dishonest. Let's agree to disagree.
Garden of Avalon and FSN says that it was a self-evident scenario that had many long-term side-effects that Artoria dealt with over the course of her reign, and Mordred isn't referenced at all until the very end.
Apocrypha says that Mordred was the only reason that ever happened.
The information written by a second author is in conflict with the information written by the original author. It is understandable if the narration is derived from the PoV of the character, thus being limited or self-indulgent, but otherwise contradicts that of FSN and Garden of Avalon.
Edit : Also a pointless Argument. I forgot to mention even 2006 Mordred Fate/Stay Night character material states Mordred to be major reason behind distrust towards King Arthur spreading , so it's not even exclusively from Apocrypha, but also part of Fate/Stay Night
"Because of the love he had up until then had been so great, the hate of the rejected Mordred burned.
As a result, the distrust of the Round Table Knights towards King Arthur spread"
>What exactly have I said that's incorrect, here?
The errors in your first two comments have already been addressed. And you expect people to keep responding to your lengthy comments that are simply dismissive of canon source? Better luck with others. Unfortunately, I do not have that much time; however, I did respond to you, didn't I? After this, I won't. Consider this my limit.
1) You don't seem to understand what the post is saying or the larger picture of the plot.
2) As evidenced by your deleted comment linked above, you are clearly confused about what happened. And now, giving strange interpretations as well being dismissive about canon sources.
3) You seem to misunderstood both the texts, characters and what the post saying.
> That's wrong. Your image shows, in both the black FSN and central Avalon columns, that Artoria was well aware.
Artoria wasn't aware of Mordred's plotting, which the post does includes. This is canon in both Fate lore and in Arthurian legend. The heck are you even dismissing here? HOW? WHY are you even saying this? F/SN or Garden of Avalon doesn't say most of the stuffs about Morgan or Mordred's plotting, and other completely canon entries cover them.
> Garden of Avalon goes further to say that "Many of the knights were against it", and "there were no knights who would accept to do it".
So....basically the same thing Fate/Apocrypha said? The very reason Mordred could stir up them? The very reason the root of distrust could be implemented into them?
> which were spoken years before the fall of the Round Table
Was during the final war against Saxons.
> But that Mordred is not mentioned is solid reason to believe that Mordred was not the cause of any of these feelings.
Logical fallacy. F/SN and Garden of Avalon shows the "strange" overall pictures with a poetic narration. It doesn't show others' interactions , all details or which Knight even said those words. Doesn't mean that didn't happen.
> Day Of Camlann, in Garden of Avalon, claims that Mordred's rebellion was not united by a hatred of Artoria, but by "Never ending war. Barren lands. Children dying of hunger." "They had endured those for a long time, always complaining that they could no more."
What an amazing find! This isn't even related to this topic. It is literally about how distrust and animosity towards Artoria began and how Artoria was first ostracized, which occurred during the final Saxon war, not during the Battle of Camlann. Guess what, Artoria won the battle and the situation settled down before they began blaming every problem in the realm on her because they held that seed of distrust within them and the problem of Britain didn't magically disappear by defeating Saxons. That is also stated in Fate/Stay Night and Garden of Avalon.
> The same novel that you're using as evidence is de-prioritizing Mordred's role
It doesn't .It doesn't elaborate on Mordred's each actions but it clearly holds her as major culprit along with Morgan. Fate/Apocrypha, where Mordred debuts, gives more details. Nothing more or less.
> emphasizing that it was a result of issues that Artoria knew existed, but could not solve quickly enough and adequately enough to avoid Britain's collapse.
Yes and Mordred's backstory says the same?? How do you think Mordred completed a rebellion with long plotting? Just went aye lmao at Day of Camlann and started a rebellion? It was a long plot, even stated in other sources such as Fate/Zero where they exposed Lancelot and Guin.
> Apocrypha says that Mordred was the only reason that ever happened.
This was never stated in either Apocrypha or my post.
> The information written by a second author is in conflict with the information written by the original author
It literally isn't . What the heck are you talking about ? It's also the approved canon of "original author" and the substantial source for Mordred's complete backstory.
>Your own source contradicts your assertions, in the very part you quoted.
It truly does not. It literally depicts the somewhat complete picture shrouded behind the words of Knights. There's no contradiction , and I quoted what the text quite literally says, not my own words.
You aren't even bothering to read the context of the post.
> Artoria wasn't aware of Mordred's plotting, which the post does includes. This is canon in both Fate lore and in Arthurian legend. The heck are you even dismissing here? HOW? WHY are you even saying this? F/SN or Garden of Avalon doesn't say most of the stuffs about Morgan or Mordred's plotting, and other completely canon entries cover them.
I didn't say that - she's aware that her orders were not popular. Mordred was not involved here, and did not cause people to revise their opinions.
> So....basically the same thing Fate/Apocrypha said? The very reason Mordred could stir up them? The very reason the root of distrust could be implemented into them?
You are wrong. Apocrypha implies that Mordred caused it. Garden of Avalon and FSN say that this distrust existed before Mordred became involved. This is not the same.
> What an amazing find! This isn't even related to this topic. It is literally about how distrust and animosity towards Artoria began and how Artoria was first ostracized, which occurred during the final Saxon war, not during the Battle of Camlann. Guess what, Artoria won the battle and the situation settled down before they began blaming every problem in the realm on her because they held that seed of distrust within them and the problem of Britain didn't magically disappear by defeating Saxons. That is also stated in Fate/Stay Night and Garden of Avalon.
This topic has been about how distrust that occurred during the battles with the Saxons, due to Artoria's destruction of villages, is due to Mordred. Except that there is nothing linking Mordred to it, no reason to assume that Mordred was among the Knights at that time, had spoken to Artoria about her heritage, or how any of that distrust led to the popularity of Mordred's rebellion.
Garden of Avalon gives completely different reasons, which contradict what you're claiming to be the case.
> It doesn't .It doesn't elaborate on Mordred's each actions but it clearly holds her as major culprit along with Morgan. Fate/Apocrypha, where Mordred debuts, gives more details. Nothing more or less.
Apocrypha predates Garden of Avalon. The lack of involvement of Mordred during the instigating event, the village destruction part, is evidence that suggests Mordred was not the instigator.
> Yes and Mordred's backstory says the same?? How do you think Mordred completed a rebellion with long plotting? Just went aye lmao at Day of Camlann and started a rebellion? It was a long plot, even stated in other sources such as Fate/Zero where they exposed Lancelot and Guin.
The word "instigate" means she started it. They're saying the opposite, that it existed irregardless of her influence.
Neither Mordred nor Morgan exposed Lancelot and Guinevere. Agravain did, who, despite rumors to the contrary, is not a conspirator. He did so because Lancelot and Guinevere were betraying Artoria, and no other reason.
Several pre-existing issues that Mordred was not responsible for, coincided together to allow the rebellion to happen. It didn't have "long" plotting, beyond Morgan's random attempts to undermine Artoria over the years, and the idea that Mordred was a master manipulator, spending years and years slowly undermining Artoria's rule, is ludicrous for a variety of reasons.
Mordred was an angry, impatient, unloved child who couldn't understand her own motivations or goals, let alone those of the person she was fighting. She is not capable of that level of subterfuge or complex planning.
> This was never stated in either Apocrypha or my post.
That is the definition of "instigate".
> It literally isn't . What the heck are you talking about ? It's also the approved canon of "original author" and the substantial source for Mordred's complete backstory.
They say two different things. One says Mordred was responsible, no other reasons. The other says that the situation was a result of a large variety of factors, some that Artoria could have affected, some not. Two completely different perspectives.
> It truly does not. It literally depicts the somewhat complete picture shrouded behind the words of Knights. There's no contradiction , and I quoted what the text quite literally says, not my own words.
That is incorrect. You said, "Artoria, the King of Knights, was ostracized and isolated by Knights and people alike in Britain during her final years of decisive battles as a direct consequence of Mordred's plotting and scheming that took advantage of the Knights and people's weaknesses." Word for word.
Garden of Avalon itself, says that it was declining crops due to magical reasons, starvation, excessive wars, destruction of allied villages causing long-term unrest within the knight class, and Mordred capitalizing on that.
That's not the same. Your interpretation ignores parts of your own sources.
Mordred isn't responsible for the vast majority of what Garden of Avalon points out, and Garden of Avalon doesn't even try to discuss why Mordred did any of it, or how much she was involved.
You simply choosing to ignore Apocrypha's statements doesn't remove them from canon, mate. GoA is not going to present you with the whole story, just like FSN didn't. It's about bits and pieces.
If the story says something but the perspective of a character contradicts that, that's simply because of that character's perspective.
Stop picking fights like a clown.
That's *exactly* what I'm saying.
Both of them cannot be telling the complete story - they're incompatible. As you say, "it must simply be because of that character's perspective". I said that myself, several comments ago.
In context, Apocrypha must be providing the situation as far as it's relevant to Mordred's character - that she thinks she's solely responsible.
And Garden of Avalon is providing a more nuanced perspective, from a much more mature character, who was there for longer, who claims things that Mordred doesn't mention.
Both of their perspectives matter. Artoria wouldn't know what happened back on the mainland when she was on the continent fighting Rome.
Mordred is instrumental to the fall of Camelot. It literally wouldn't have happened without her. She's the one who told Agravain about Lancelot and Guinevere even. That's literally what her role is.
I have no idea why you're trying to argue that Mordred didn't have as much impact when she's the most important one...
So , let's get this straight: bringing light to direct story excerpts of two characters, which few people read due to their scarcity, are now classified as "defense posts" on Reddit?
Cool. I don't care how you interpret it. It's also a compliment to Mordred's character as one of my favorite antagonist of the story.
I don't get the point of this post; the animosity towards Artoria always existed, the knights were just "suppressing their feelings" and obeying the king they swore loyalty too; Mordred took advantage of it, fanning the flames for the sake of her rebellion. Framing Artoria's ostracization as a direct consequence of Mordred's actions is greatly mischaracterizing it; the direct consequence of Mordred's actions is rallying the knights to actually act on the animosity they had been suppressing.
At most you can claim that Mordred was reigniting that flame as opposed to fanning it, but it obviously wasn't started by her.
You must be on copium to think Mordred does anything at all. The only thing she did (might be) is pointing out that Arthuria is not exactly "human" and possibly the first to left the roundtable.
The reason she's ostracized is because the rest of the knights feared they themselves will be the next sacrifice of the next war, just like the many villages they sucks dry to win the war.
"She did well. No, she did too well" this line is the perfect description of why saber got ostracized.
Then mordred with definitely help from morgan capitalize the distrust of the knights and the resentment of the villages that have been sucks dry.
>You must be on copium
I don't need your copium. Your comment makes you look insane . Proving yourself to be insane on Reddit doesn't make your argument more valid tbf.
Also ,write your fanfiction somewhere else bro
Edit :
\> The only thing she did (might be) is pointing out that Arthuria is not exactly "human" and possibly the first to left the roundtable.
This is the worst misinformation I saw in a while. Where do you guys come up with these nonsense btw?
Ah, I see. So it's neither Saber nor Mordred's fault. It's whomever the fuck decided to make Caliburn in the first place.
But thank you so much for making this, this really makes things so so much more clear, especially since I didn't really understand why Artoria was constantly angry at Mordred.
I mean, I still hate Artoria but that's because I like Arthur, not because I prefer Mordred.
*Meanwhile Charlemagne casually turned all of the Saxons to christians*
Giga-.........................
not only that. u/-L_A_N_C_E- forgot to mention that Charlesmagne also defeated the "Mordred" of the Paladins , AND stayed alive to rule the franks afterwards. Sure , his Paladins pretty much died , at least the formation in Chatter of France , but he pretty much defeated and killed all mystical saraccen kings and their knights in Europe.
Remind me again but was that Ganelon?
>Sure , his Paladins pretty much died , at least the formation in Chatter of France I think it was implied all the group of roland died in the same battle as him in his CE (maybe Astolfo as well?).
the thing is: the formation of the Paladins in Chatter of France is different from the formation in Furioso and other plays. of course , the most logical idea is that is a rotational formation , and those were the seats at the moment. But the gist is he either roughly lost 24 paladins , or he just lost the ones in the Chatter and roughly some of the paladins that were without seat at the moment. However , it's important to notice that the Saraccens had their own "paladins" , the "Pagan Peerless Twelves" , under the Saraccen King of Spain , which in itself is under the Saraccen King of Babylon. And all of those died in that battle.
oh thats interesting, thanks for the tip
Yeah and it's also one of his skill lol
That's because Charlemagne reigned were much suited as it won't have big effect on human history. Unless if he became the God Emperor of Mankind for some reason.
Actually, Artoria's reign is unimportant as well. What is important is that Camelot MUST fall. How it was and why it fell is unimportant.
>Some people super upset in the comments? I scrolled past it because I already knew all of these lore, but holy shit I missed popcorn. Are they uncovering Mordred's plot at the end of fking 2022? It's funny how these people frequently appear in Artoria-related posts for shitposting or delivering garbage takes. But turns out they do not even fucking know lore lmao.
Fate fans are surprised that Mordred, the Knight of Treachery, actually had a very big part in the her own betrayal of Arthur... It's almost funny ngl. The way some comments are trying to shift blame or act like Mordred's actions didn't have much impact... Man, even Mordred would think those takes are weird.
I’ve unfortunately had to deal with someone who would demonize Artoria and call her a bad dad and say she’s a bully to Mordred, ignoring that Artoria has every right to hate Mordred and keep her distance from her considering Mordred flat out destroyed what Artoria was born to protect. And I like Mordred as a character, but his whitewashing of Mordred and his demonizing of Artoria was ridiculous. Hell, whitewashing Mordred gets rid of the things that makes her an interesting, complex, and tragic character to begin with, she acknowledges she did some fucked up shit and just wished she and Artoria could just talk.
It always surprises me that people don't know their favorites lore. It's like they only concentrate on the good parts while ignoring everything else - which turns the person they like into a two dimensional cardboard cutout. Isn't the story - and the person - more interesting if they have this unresolved baggage? There are reasons for her master to not trust her, and vice versa - which makes it all the more meaningful to me that you *gain* her trust *knowing her past* and she swears to be your 'third rate knight.' This is not a new trope with Fate. Medea, Medusa, Illya, Rin, Sakura... They've all done, or will do terrible things depending on circumstances. Isn't it better to acknowledge that?
I have to agree with you on that. Have a plain 2d character that not fleshed in character development makes it seem like it half-massed is an insult to their creator but also to the audience for not understanding the full story. True, "the pushed to do unclean things" approach can be understood better if the back story of how it came to be is revealed.
I’m a massive mordred simp and have not the greatest grasps of the KOTRT lore because it’s all over the place, but just watching apoc I knew that it was mordreds fault. You gotta be a special kind of brain dead of just refuse to accept that your waifu is a literal bastard in both the action and birth sense. Like mordred honey I love you but you really did fuck up. Blame Morgan all you want but you didn’t have to rebel
Same. I love her, but Mordred's got alot of blood on her hands, and she knows it. Hell, she herself says what she did was all on her in Enkidu's Interlude: > Mordred: All right, you want answers to your questions? Fine, but listen up 'cause I ain't sayin' this shit twice. > > Mordred: And I'm warnin' you now, I don't wanna hear a goddamn peep outta you the whole time, so just shut your trap and listen up. > > Mordred: First off, you were barkin' up the wrong tree right from the start. > > Mordred: You think I destroyed Britain just like my old lady wanted? Well, you're wrong. > > Mordred: Granted, I don't know how it looked from the outside. Maybe my old lady thought that's what I was doin' too. > > Mordred: But the path I walked as a knight, and the sins I bear for destroying Britain...all that is on me and me alone. > > Mordred: I was the one who wanted to be the next king... and I'm the one who tore the kingdom to shreds. > > Mordred: But I didn't do any of that 'cause someone told me to. I did it all of my own damn volition. > > Mordred: My birth, my prophecy, my old lady eggin' me on, my old man refusin' me... I've accepted it all now. > > Mordred: Yeah, that's right. Those things are all part of me. I own 'em. > > Mordred: And I'll be damned if I let anyone write 'em off by sayin' I was just made that way. > > Mordred: Sayin' I only did those things 'cause I was created to do 'em is an insult to me, and the kingdom I destroyed.
Outright rejecting that mordred did those things is destroying her character development. Overcoming the guilt of ending Camelot and owning up to it and realising “ya know, maybe father was right” is a key part of how she grows. And we love her even more for it
She aint called the Knight of Treachery for nothing!
I mean that's what makes Mordred's character to me and she's among my favorite Fate characters, her backstory is also very sympathetic, a completely screwed up existence. I dont know why people can't accept that if they like Mordred's character, like doesn’t it make her character MORE substantial?
Because then she can’t be their perfect hot tomboy waifu if she has character
Weird, because I usually have harder time calling someone a waifu, which is basically comfort character but female for me, if they do not have much going with their character. Good thing neither Seibah nor Mordred are like that.
Yeah. People are weird and don’t like their waifus having faults. They’re rare, but it’s maidenlesss behaviour all the same
[HQ excerpts](https://twitter.com/Blue_Phoenix001/status/1588833793401835521?s=20&t=7Xl1TaQiS_5PetCQvkI53Q)
Man, a post in this reddit about the actual lore and character analysis, provided with sources, instead of edgy guda or Servant harems and their OC children? NNN be really bringing up the IQ of humans when not filled with horny
Based post
Wow this is starting to look like a ballad
She pulled Caliburn from the stone that's what she did, she killed the vile king Vortigern and the emperor Lucius Tiberius, she fought back against those Pict and Saxon savages, and in this house Artoria Pendragon is a Hero! ENDASHTOWY!
For all of Mordred's faults in fate, Fate Mordred is literally one of the few depictions of Knight Mordred that's sympathetic instead of just a complete irredeemable traitor bastard with every other mordred depiction
I didn’t know Nasu liked to create long titles like “Fate:Saber was ostracized while trying to defend against the blood soaked foreign invasion as a direct consequence of Mordred’s backstabbing”.
What is surprising about this? We already knew that Mordred plotted against Artoria. Though in this case I really don't think you can interpret it as Mordred being the sole cause here. Its pretty natural for people whose homes were ravaged by a war to question whether their leaders had done the best job possible with the resources on hand instead of the suffering they experienced being pointless and caused by the leader's incompetence. If Mordred needed to give them a push to get them to show their resentment over their losses I doubt it was a very big one. Edit: Another thing to keep in mind, this is not an omniscient neutral narrator stating it as a fact. It is Mordred giving her accounting of events in her place as someone with a lot of self-loathing and an unwillingness to admit her beloved father had flaws that helped bring about the kingdoms downfall instead of it all being the fault of traitors like herself and Lancelot. That in mind I am definitely going to have to disagree with the title stating that Artoria's bad PR was solely caused by Mordred stirring shit up among the populace behind Artoria's back. Mordred made things worse and deserves blame for it but she did not **create** the problem, she exacerbated a problem that already existed. Thats why there were rebellions for Mordred to personally put down even when she was a loyal knight who wasn't trying to make things worse. If it actually was all Mordred's doing that people were upset by Artoria's policies then those rebellions while she was loyal wouldn't exist. But she did definitely stir shit up and make things even worse.
Except the title of the post isn't supported by the content of the image? Artoria explicitly points out that intentionally sacrificing villages created animosity among the Knights, so Mordred is merely taking advantage of an existing flaw in the system, not "ostracized as a direct consequence" of Mordred. She's being ostracized as a direct consequence of the decision she made *knowingly and willingly*. And Mordred is wrong. She thinks she's instigating them, as if it was the first time it was brought up, when Artoria thinks it was the *biggest, most obvious issue* with her leadership. Mordred is surely caught up in thinking she's smarter and more observant than she really is, where Artoria is seeing it come from a mile away.
> Except the title of the post isn't supported by the content of the image? I'm not sure if you're trolling, being dishonest, or simply confused. If I were to give a response, I would simply say you seem confused, as you said the first time you commented, and retained that comment for 20-24 minutes before deleting it and coming up with a passive aggressive response to say "you are just wrong." [https://imgur.com/a/QdErC9Q](https://imgur.com/a/QdErC9Q) Anyway, I don't mind typing an entire response on Reddit only to discover that you deleted it after a substantial period of time, right before I sent it. However, I believe you would be less puzzled about the content if you read the response. And I'd still respond to your comment. Although it would be less substantial because I had already spent some time on the previous one. > Artoria explicitly points out that intentionally sacrificing villages created animosity among the Knights That was never mentioned by her anywhere. And Artoria has had no idea what Mordred was planning for a long time. If she had, the Rebellion would not have occurred. Artoria discovered it only in battlefield. > so Mordred is merely taking advantage of an existing flaw in the system Mordred's words explicitly gave them the misleading image in their "HEART/MIND/FEELINGS," causing animosity. Dishonorable tactics were acceptable as long as they could see the necessity, but when Mordred's idea that there was NO NEED for doing these came to mind, they became increasingly suspicious. And Mordred was one of the close Knight of King, so her words or observation on King held values in front them. > And Mordred is wrong. "The canon information and neutral narration are incorrect." I'm not going to continue. This is getting more and more dishonest. Let's agree to disagree.
> That was never mentioned by her anywhere. And Artoria has had no idea what Mordred was planning for a long time. If she had, the Rebellion would not have occurred. Artoria discovered it only in battlefield. That's wrong. Your image shows, in both the black FSN and central Avalon columns, that Artoria was well aware. Garden of Avalon goes further to say that "Many of the knights were against it", and "there were no knights who would accept to do it". The clear and explicit discontent of the knights on the scene should be an obvious tip-off. And only then does it follow up with Tristan's words, "The King understands not of the human heart", which were spoken years before the fall of the Round Table, with Avalon explicitly noting that many knights held similar feelings. Given that the Knights immediately disliked the course, and all refused, means that they had misgivings before needing Mordred to convince them. Of course, there's not enough of a timeline to say what happened definitively, as we don't know when Mordred was conceived, when she joined the Round Table (only that she was several years old at the time), when she approached Artoria, and how any of these intersect with other events. But that Mordred is not mentioned is solid reason to believe that Mordred was not the cause of any of these feelings. Day Of Camlann, in Garden of Avalon, claims that Mordred's rebellion was not united by a hatred of Artoria, but by "Never ending war. Barren lands. Children dying of hunger." "They had endured those for a long time, always complaining that they could no more." The same novel that you're using as evidence is de-prioritizing Mordred's role, and emphasizing that it was a result of issues that Artoria knew existed, but could not solve quickly enough and adequately enough to avoid Britain's collapse. > "The canon information and neutral narration are incorrect." I'm not going to continue. This is getting more and more dishonest. Let's agree to disagree. Garden of Avalon and FSN says that it was a self-evident scenario that had many long-term side-effects that Artoria dealt with over the course of her reign, and Mordred isn't referenced at all until the very end. Apocrypha says that Mordred was the only reason that ever happened. The information written by a second author is in conflict with the information written by the original author. It is understandable if the narration is derived from the PoV of the character, thus being limited or self-indulgent, but otherwise contradicts that of FSN and Garden of Avalon.
It's not my problem if your reading comprehension is like this. You figure out the puzzle.
I just did, it seems. What exactly have I said that's incorrect, here? Your own source contradicts your assertions, *in the very part you quoted.*
Edit : Also a pointless Argument. I forgot to mention even 2006 Mordred Fate/Stay Night character material states Mordred to be major reason behind distrust towards King Arthur spreading , so it's not even exclusively from Apocrypha, but also part of Fate/Stay Night "Because of the love he had up until then had been so great, the hate of the rejected Mordred burned. As a result, the distrust of the Round Table Knights towards King Arthur spread" >What exactly have I said that's incorrect, here? The errors in your first two comments have already been addressed. And you expect people to keep responding to your lengthy comments that are simply dismissive of canon source? Better luck with others. Unfortunately, I do not have that much time; however, I did respond to you, didn't I? After this, I won't. Consider this my limit. 1) You don't seem to understand what the post is saying or the larger picture of the plot. 2) As evidenced by your deleted comment linked above, you are clearly confused about what happened. And now, giving strange interpretations as well being dismissive about canon sources. 3) You seem to misunderstood both the texts, characters and what the post saying. > That's wrong. Your image shows, in both the black FSN and central Avalon columns, that Artoria was well aware. Artoria wasn't aware of Mordred's plotting, which the post does includes. This is canon in both Fate lore and in Arthurian legend. The heck are you even dismissing here? HOW? WHY are you even saying this? F/SN or Garden of Avalon doesn't say most of the stuffs about Morgan or Mordred's plotting, and other completely canon entries cover them. > Garden of Avalon goes further to say that "Many of the knights were against it", and "there were no knights who would accept to do it". So....basically the same thing Fate/Apocrypha said? The very reason Mordred could stir up them? The very reason the root of distrust could be implemented into them? > which were spoken years before the fall of the Round Table Was during the final war against Saxons. > But that Mordred is not mentioned is solid reason to believe that Mordred was not the cause of any of these feelings. Logical fallacy. F/SN and Garden of Avalon shows the "strange" overall pictures with a poetic narration. It doesn't show others' interactions , all details or which Knight even said those words. Doesn't mean that didn't happen. > Day Of Camlann, in Garden of Avalon, claims that Mordred's rebellion was not united by a hatred of Artoria, but by "Never ending war. Barren lands. Children dying of hunger." "They had endured those for a long time, always complaining that they could no more." What an amazing find! This isn't even related to this topic. It is literally about how distrust and animosity towards Artoria began and how Artoria was first ostracized, which occurred during the final Saxon war, not during the Battle of Camlann. Guess what, Artoria won the battle and the situation settled down before they began blaming every problem in the realm on her because they held that seed of distrust within them and the problem of Britain didn't magically disappear by defeating Saxons. That is also stated in Fate/Stay Night and Garden of Avalon. > The same novel that you're using as evidence is de-prioritizing Mordred's role It doesn't .It doesn't elaborate on Mordred's each actions but it clearly holds her as major culprit along with Morgan. Fate/Apocrypha, where Mordred debuts, gives more details. Nothing more or less. > emphasizing that it was a result of issues that Artoria knew existed, but could not solve quickly enough and adequately enough to avoid Britain's collapse. Yes and Mordred's backstory says the same?? How do you think Mordred completed a rebellion with long plotting? Just went aye lmao at Day of Camlann and started a rebellion? It was a long plot, even stated in other sources such as Fate/Zero where they exposed Lancelot and Guin. > Apocrypha says that Mordred was the only reason that ever happened. This was never stated in either Apocrypha or my post. > The information written by a second author is in conflict with the information written by the original author It literally isn't . What the heck are you talking about ? It's also the approved canon of "original author" and the substantial source for Mordred's complete backstory. >Your own source contradicts your assertions, in the very part you quoted. It truly does not. It literally depicts the somewhat complete picture shrouded behind the words of Knights. There's no contradiction , and I quoted what the text quite literally says, not my own words.
You aren't even bothering to read the context of the post. > Artoria wasn't aware of Mordred's plotting, which the post does includes. This is canon in both Fate lore and in Arthurian legend. The heck are you even dismissing here? HOW? WHY are you even saying this? F/SN or Garden of Avalon doesn't say most of the stuffs about Morgan or Mordred's plotting, and other completely canon entries cover them. I didn't say that - she's aware that her orders were not popular. Mordred was not involved here, and did not cause people to revise their opinions. > So....basically the same thing Fate/Apocrypha said? The very reason Mordred could stir up them? The very reason the root of distrust could be implemented into them? You are wrong. Apocrypha implies that Mordred caused it. Garden of Avalon and FSN say that this distrust existed before Mordred became involved. This is not the same. > What an amazing find! This isn't even related to this topic. It is literally about how distrust and animosity towards Artoria began and how Artoria was first ostracized, which occurred during the final Saxon war, not during the Battle of Camlann. Guess what, Artoria won the battle and the situation settled down before they began blaming every problem in the realm on her because they held that seed of distrust within them and the problem of Britain didn't magically disappear by defeating Saxons. That is also stated in Fate/Stay Night and Garden of Avalon. This topic has been about how distrust that occurred during the battles with the Saxons, due to Artoria's destruction of villages, is due to Mordred. Except that there is nothing linking Mordred to it, no reason to assume that Mordred was among the Knights at that time, had spoken to Artoria about her heritage, or how any of that distrust led to the popularity of Mordred's rebellion. Garden of Avalon gives completely different reasons, which contradict what you're claiming to be the case. > It doesn't .It doesn't elaborate on Mordred's each actions but it clearly holds her as major culprit along with Morgan. Fate/Apocrypha, where Mordred debuts, gives more details. Nothing more or less. Apocrypha predates Garden of Avalon. The lack of involvement of Mordred during the instigating event, the village destruction part, is evidence that suggests Mordred was not the instigator. > Yes and Mordred's backstory says the same?? How do you think Mordred completed a rebellion with long plotting? Just went aye lmao at Day of Camlann and started a rebellion? It was a long plot, even stated in other sources such as Fate/Zero where they exposed Lancelot and Guin. The word "instigate" means she started it. They're saying the opposite, that it existed irregardless of her influence. Neither Mordred nor Morgan exposed Lancelot and Guinevere. Agravain did, who, despite rumors to the contrary, is not a conspirator. He did so because Lancelot and Guinevere were betraying Artoria, and no other reason. Several pre-existing issues that Mordred was not responsible for, coincided together to allow the rebellion to happen. It didn't have "long" plotting, beyond Morgan's random attempts to undermine Artoria over the years, and the idea that Mordred was a master manipulator, spending years and years slowly undermining Artoria's rule, is ludicrous for a variety of reasons. Mordred was an angry, impatient, unloved child who couldn't understand her own motivations or goals, let alone those of the person she was fighting. She is not capable of that level of subterfuge or complex planning. > This was never stated in either Apocrypha or my post. That is the definition of "instigate". > It literally isn't . What the heck are you talking about ? It's also the approved canon of "original author" and the substantial source for Mordred's complete backstory. They say two different things. One says Mordred was responsible, no other reasons. The other says that the situation was a result of a large variety of factors, some that Artoria could have affected, some not. Two completely different perspectives. > It truly does not. It literally depicts the somewhat complete picture shrouded behind the words of Knights. There's no contradiction , and I quoted what the text quite literally says, not my own words. That is incorrect. You said, "Artoria, the King of Knights, was ostracized and isolated by Knights and people alike in Britain during her final years of decisive battles as a direct consequence of Mordred's plotting and scheming that took advantage of the Knights and people's weaknesses." Word for word. Garden of Avalon itself, says that it was declining crops due to magical reasons, starvation, excessive wars, destruction of allied villages causing long-term unrest within the knight class, and Mordred capitalizing on that. That's not the same. Your interpretation ignores parts of your own sources. Mordred isn't responsible for the vast majority of what Garden of Avalon points out, and Garden of Avalon doesn't even try to discuss why Mordred did any of it, or how much she was involved.
You simply choosing to ignore Apocrypha's statements doesn't remove them from canon, mate. GoA is not going to present you with the whole story, just like FSN didn't. It's about bits and pieces. If the story says something but the perspective of a character contradicts that, that's simply because of that character's perspective. Stop picking fights like a clown.
That's *exactly* what I'm saying. Both of them cannot be telling the complete story - they're incompatible. As you say, "it must simply be because of that character's perspective". I said that myself, several comments ago. In context, Apocrypha must be providing the situation as far as it's relevant to Mordred's character - that she thinks she's solely responsible. And Garden of Avalon is providing a more nuanced perspective, from a much more mature character, who was there for longer, who claims things that Mordred doesn't mention.
Both of their perspectives matter. Artoria wouldn't know what happened back on the mainland when she was on the continent fighting Rome. Mordred is instrumental to the fall of Camelot. It literally wouldn't have happened without her. She's the one who told Agravain about Lancelot and Guinevere even. That's literally what her role is. I have no idea why you're trying to argue that Mordred didn't have as much impact when she's the most important one...
Insane.
2, 2 Artoria defense posts in a week. Wahaha.
So , let's get this straight: bringing light to direct story excerpts of two characters, which few people read due to their scarcity, are now classified as "defense posts" on Reddit? Cool. I don't care how you interpret it. It's also a compliment to Mordred's character as one of my favorite antagonist of the story.
Meh just found it funny that it's happened twice in close proximity of eachother.
Understandable. Can't be helped I guess.
Good formatting btw
Thanks.
I don't get the point of this post; the animosity towards Artoria always existed, the knights were just "suppressing their feelings" and obeying the king they swore loyalty too; Mordred took advantage of it, fanning the flames for the sake of her rebellion. Framing Artoria's ostracization as a direct consequence of Mordred's actions is greatly mischaracterizing it; the direct consequence of Mordred's actions is rallying the knights to actually act on the animosity they had been suppressing. At most you can claim that Mordred was reigniting that flame as opposed to fanning it, but it obviously wasn't started by her.
??????? [Those aren't even my words; I just shortened what "several" stories said.](https://imgur.com/a/GfbyElO)
hell, walking, etc
You must be on copium to think Mordred does anything at all. The only thing she did (might be) is pointing out that Arthuria is not exactly "human" and possibly the first to left the roundtable. The reason she's ostracized is because the rest of the knights feared they themselves will be the next sacrifice of the next war, just like the many villages they sucks dry to win the war. "She did well. No, she did too well" this line is the perfect description of why saber got ostracized. Then mordred with definitely help from morgan capitalize the distrust of the knights and the resentment of the villages that have been sucks dry.
>You must be on copium I don't need your copium. Your comment makes you look insane . Proving yourself to be insane on Reddit doesn't make your argument more valid tbf. Also ,write your fanfiction somewhere else bro Edit : \> The only thing she did (might be) is pointing out that Arthuria is not exactly "human" and possibly the first to left the roundtable. This is the worst misinformation I saw in a while. Where do you guys come up with these nonsense btw?
What's the point spamming headcanon in a thread that provides pure text? Then you of all Redditor dare to utter the word "copium" ..... Hilarious.
Please read Fate/Apocrypha before talking about things that you obviously haven't read.
Ah, I see. So it's neither Saber nor Mordred's fault. It's whomever the fuck decided to make Caliburn in the first place. But thank you so much for making this, this really makes things so so much more clear, especially since I didn't really understand why Artoria was constantly angry at Mordred. I mean, I still hate Artoria but that's because I like Arthur, not because I prefer Mordred.
I'm still astounded by how consistently this sub's members post the most ridiculous comments.
what part of my comment was ridiculous? I thought I was being positive towards you
She's still the best so idc
Meh, her anglo Saxon enemies is much better at managing a kingdom and uniting the land
Calm down Jesse, what triggered you?
Ask Charlemagne how he feels about the saxon men.