AnimeSuki Forums

Register Forum Rules FAQ Members List Social Groups Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Go Back   AnimeSuki Forum > Anime Discussion > Current Series > Fate/ Series

Notices

View Poll Results: Fate/Zero - Episode 11 Rating
Perfect 10 87 51.18%
9 out of 10 : Excellent 53 31.18%
8 out of 10 : Very Good 14 8.24%
7 out of 10 : Good 7 4.12%
6 out of 10 : Average 3 1.76%
5 out of 10 : Below Average 3 1.76%
4 out of 10 : Poor 1 0.59%
3 out of 10 : Bad 0 0%
2 out of 10 : Very Bad 0 0%
1 out of 10 : Painful 2 1.18%
Voters: 170. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2012-01-14, 04:24   Link #361
Edict
Member
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thess
Re-watch episode 3 to know what Iskandar means as conquest. It seems many have forgotten this. You're also misunderstanding ambition as a bad thing. It's only a bad thing in hands of a bad man. Iskandar's a Neutral Good character, officially.

having been sometime since I last watched this episode it was a welcome reminder of the season's early strengths in the outline of characters (Irisviel and Saber's discussions) and the sense of eventuality (Lancer's introduction), which was not so imminent after all. As with the added content of episode 11 I found the use of dialogue and scenario to explain and clarify integral or underlying meaning was better structured in the start of the season. In the latter part the loquacious dialogue with little addition to character concept attenuated progression.

anyway, regarding scenes with Iskander, though it is certainly possible I missed the detailed alluded there was a discussion with Waver where Iskander deliberates on whether purchasing modern war machines (ten stealth bombers) or the country itself would be more advantageous. From this outline it would be sound if rather necessary to infer accordingly that war is at least as much a part of Iskander's methodology as any other. There is nothing wrong with ambition per se, inasmuch as pursuits are suitable and tempered in principled balance to other matters.


Quote:
The emphasis was made for Saber to draw the wrong conclusion about him (not caring for his people which is what ultimately gets him angry at Saber) and get ultimately told when he reveals that his greatest treasure are his people. His way of kingship is one that the followers and the king share one goal. One of her flaws, in particular in her novel portrayal, is her self-righteousness and her inability to click with people unless they share the same set of morals or regrets...this doesn't affect his people because they share the same desire: he follows their wishes as much as they follow his, they are one entity that walk together to the same goal.

although having suggested some departure from the material as a cohesive whole that is not to say Iskander's kingship speech is in fact contrary to the ethos he was intended to represent. Without dwelling too much on these differences, inasmuch as Iskander's (specifically: kingship) ideas are taken to portray this dimension of character it would follow the reason his war party (also specifically for this category of ideas: the army is not his "people" in the fullest sense) is treasured is because of its serviceability. To draw some contrast, if Iskander placed his people above all else then his wish would be similar in kind to Saber's endeavour, yet for any likelihood they might have it will be on this one point they are wholly distinguished.


Quote:
Like that knight said: King Arthur doesn't understand human feelings. Heck, her downfall came because she hurt her son's feelings... misinterpreting them...

I imagine that aspect is in part intentionally defining of Saber's known identity but would differentiate between necessary and sufficient causes for the outcome. In other words, I suspect there is a dualistic process where, originally, at the end of the day the kingdom withdrew from Saber rather than Saber failing the the kingdom. As above these are wholly different matters that are best clearly demarcated. Presumably there is a qualitative difference between "destroying villages" and "sacrificing people" to be further edified with respect to Saber's code. The other comparable facets between Iskander and Saber mentioned are interesting comparisons in their own right which if immediate relevance in tangential could at this time be left aside for other discussions.


Quote:
The plot establishes him as the one single character who is avoiding needless bloodshed. He stops Lancer and Saber, offers them an alliance. He saves Saber from being killed, forcing Berserker and Lancer to retreat. He proposes a dialogue instead of a War between Kings. He's being really diplomatic about the whole deal and this is a war to obtain what he wants. Episode 13, he's the one who brings Lancer over and proposes an alliance to fight Caster. He also tells Saber he wants her as one of his Servants (which is, in his mind, the only way he can save her from her curse loneliness and thorny path she calls kingship. So she can enjoy all fun in life she has been missing with all eternal companions bros).

in these instances it is apparent Iskander is firstly interested in whether he can influence outcome independent of battle. This is not for the furtherance of peace but the expediency of avoiding conflict by the same degrees to what can be accumulated without expending force. The strategy is obvious and it is not surprising that everyone has refused the offer of allowing them to forgo their aims to advance Iskander's.

across examples of past and presen events Iskander has either actively or passively facilitated conflict where it serves purposes or when diplomacy in direction with his objectives are not to be met. The usurped kingdoms were retained (with Iskander as king) being the foundation of his empire, the lands returned were already conquered, those who joined him thereafter had no more to gain than to side with the one who had taken away (to belabour a point you have made - reorientated...) their previous (...notions of...) existence.

as it is however, just about any interpretation of these events and their causes will be determined in relation to Iskander's expressed intention. Though there is some room to interpret otherwise doing so has to ignore a range of statements concerning long-term intentions and possible procedures to those ends. But whilst I don't think it is feasible to derive a consilient view of Iskander's character it does seem plausible to finely qualify his persona so that it won't be obscured by generalised identity. To put it into your words, the world could always use more onii-chans of this sort; regrettably the writing is promiscuous (a pervasive flaw of anime in my estimation - ideas, metaphor and symbolism are often used in a fickle halfhearted way) so that the various disparate elements delimit observation of interpersonal character as shown towards others with understanding and sympathetic mindset from a relatively unique perspective.


Quote:
I do understand the academical temptation to resort on historical records to analyze the characters or known legends, but you have to judge it for its merit in the Nasuverse.

there is certainly some difficulty in knowing what to assume of a heroes' identity as it pertains to their purported history and namesake. The issue is probably further confounded because different heroes share approximation with the historical figure to varying degrees of relevance. In some cases semblance would appear to be limited to periods of their known identity, whereas in others it is the tradition and mythos which the hero personifies.

Last edited by Edict; 2012-01-14 at 04:35.
Edict is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-01-15, 03:52   Link #362
Thess
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grey View Post
You said he wanted to avoid unnecessary bloodshed. But now you're saying, "Of course he's a soldier and they fight?"
Fighting =/= killing or humiliating. Saber is a knight. She enjoys fighting and jousting. As does Rider. And Lancer. Is exercise and what they do.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grey View Post
He's a man who wanted Saber and Lancer for his army, and he wanted to become flesh and blood so he could properly conquer the world. However you spin it, those aren't the actions of someone who is aiming to avoid conflict, violence, or bloodshed. Those goals and actions will naturally lead to conflict and bloodshed. Otherwise he wouldn't need an army in the first place.
Every single goal can lead to bloodshed. Bloodshed is inevitable in Fate. You can't save everyone it's impossible.

Saber's wish to save her country and rewrite history? It'll lead to bloodshed too. The Anglo-Saxon people are the ones you know as England now. Those were Saber's enemies. Hell, there're high chances United States won't even exist if she gets with her wish granted (since her Britain is the Romano/Welsh one).

Sure, Rider's wish could potentially kill people, however, it could also kill less than Saber's (considering the ramifications of his real wish: Oceanus). Once again you believe that Rider's conquering has to do with destruction and with humiliation when he explained it's the opposite. Could it happen? Sure, it could! But from the headstart, Saber's wish is more guaranteed to fuck up the world than Rider's.

Let's not even touch Gilgamesh's...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grey View Post
When you boil it down, he sheds blood when it fits with his desires. The only difference is in their desires, and when it calls for them to shed blood.
All of their desires call to spill blood. Did you miss that they need to kill each other to make it real?

Rider's completely out of place because he wants to save Saber, Lancer, etc.

Rider only spills blood when he has fatigued all other ways of dialogue. Did you miss that he wanted to negotiate all the time while Saber is sword-happy at drop of hat and even Lancer was annoyed that he bailed her ass from his spear in episode 4?

You're once again mistaking that Rider doing as he pleases = evil or bad. He is disgusted when Gil shows sadistic thrill to watch Saber suffer under her crushing burden. He lives the day without holding back, but his amusements are mostly harmless (hell, he's living right now and what he does with his time? Does he go making children furniture? No, he orders a T-shirt, he reads books, watches TV, buys video games, charms an elderly couple...). Carpe Diem.

Doing what you want is only problematic when the nature of the person is evil like Caster. However, Rider's Neutral Good. His desires and wants are portrayed as pretty benevolent and that's why he was beloved and followed by so many. Because he was a grand, straightforward, simple man with a vision and a dream they could share. He compares Clinton to Darius, his opponent in the past, but speaks of Darius to Waver in the novels as a good friend of his.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grey View Post
Of course, the LN may spin the whole "conquest" thing as aiming for a greater good, like the anime suggests with Kiritsugu. So it would be "bloodshed for a good cause." But IIRC, they haven't explicitly developed that as a goal of Rider's conquest yet. And I still haven't read the LN up to where the anime ends.
The anime spells out what Rider thinks is conquest in the earlier episodes. Spells aloud what was Rider's true desire (Oceanus).

There aren't good causes for bloodshed. It's a sad inevitability sometimes.
__________________

"Who would understand you after I die? Who else would march forward by your side?"
Thess is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-01-15, 04:07   Link #363
Ithekro
The Comet is Coming
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Republic of California
Age: 37
With the Cult of Personality, as seen no only in his Army, but also the effect his has on the audience, Rider could take over the world without a lot of bloodshed.

Add to this who he his, and what he did historically. I am under the impression that if they is any one man that will be respected in the old parts of the world (everything from Greece to Eygpt, to India) it would be Alexander the Great. You don't get "the Great" title lightly. Even old Persia would probably respect him (as oppose to Gil).

He probably doesn't need his army. All he needs is the right sort of political backing, either from a major country, or if he's really good, revamp the UN until people want him to lead them. Where they want what he wants, and he wants what they want.

He might take over the world...and then discover space travel, and other planets. If he wasn't fiction and he wanted to go out there and take those mainly just to see them with his own eyes, walk them with his own feet. I'd follow him.
__________________
Dessler Soto, Banzai!
Ithekro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-01-15, 04:31   Link #364
Thess
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edict View Post
anyway, regarding scenes with Iskander, though it is certainly possible I missed the detailed alluded there was a discussion with Waver where Iskander deliberates on whether purchasing modern war machines (ten stealth bombers) or the country itself would be more advantageous. From this outline it would be sound if rather necessary to infer accordingly that war is at least as much a part of Iskander's methodology as any other. There is nothing wrong with ambition per se, inasmuch as pursuits are suitable and tempered in principled balance to other matters.
Of course it is. All of these Servants were summoned to fight, but what does Rider do anyway? He is pretty much watching TV and wishing to play video games. Everything fascinates Rider. As long is not suffering. He has a terrible, soft spot for that. You can see it in episodes 9 and 11.

Unlike Gilgamesh who appreciates the pleasure of watching a grand tragedy, Rider hates it.

He is not the first or only Servant who would show fixation for modern weaponry.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Edict View Post
although having suggested some departure from the material as a cohesive whole that is not to say Iskander's kingship speech is in fact contrary to the ethos he was intended to represent. Without dwelling too much on these differences, inasmuch as Iskander's (specifically: kingship) ideas are taken to portray this dimension of character it would follow the reason his war party (also specifically for this category of ideas: the army is not his "people" in the fullest sense) is treasured is because of its serviceability. To draw some contrast, if Iskander placed his people above all else then his wish would be similar in kind to Saber's endeavour, yet for any likelihood they might have it will be on this one point they are wholly distinguished.
They are treasured because he puts the bond between them as his most cherished possession. Noble Phantasms aren't superhero powers: they are feats or accomplishments from heroes that are usually conceptual rather than powerlevels based. They are literal miracles and divine mysteries. Rider, who isn’t a magus, can do that Reality Marble because he carries with him the will of each of his followers in flawless cooperation. They share one dream and one mind. Their souls answer to his call. That he could do that is a pipedream and impossible… But their bond is so strong that defies the rules of The World.

Anyway, none of the kings ever mentions the people outside their army. At most, there are mentions in Fate of the villages Saber destroyed in her own country to support her military units overseas. And the miracle of Excalibur has nothing to do with the average citizen either, it’s all about the heroes or warriors in the battlefield, their glory and ideals. She envied Rider because he could bond with his followers personally while she couldn’t. If you want to sum her strength, is on the glory/ideals, Iskandar's strength is on relationships/bonds, while Archer's strength is on treasures.

The division between Rider and Saber is that Iskandar never sacrificed any human whim or emotion he had, instead he pushed himself to live at his fullest. He never aspired to be anything else but the pinnacle of a human ruler to guide his people into that kind of life. Saber, when its said she sacrificed herself for the kingdom, is that she threw away her human emotions and became an ideal to rule. While Rider shared his dream and led his people who were sharing the effort but willingly; Saber built a wall and carried it on herself to the point even the son that loved her so much was at loss to the point he tried to slay her over a misunderstanding. Just like Saber, Rider paid the price too, since he died out of an exotic disease he got in his travel.

Both of them occasionally stepped on the minority for the sake of the majority. The two of them are good people.

There are also contextual differences but that is the gap between them.

At the end of her reign, Saber saw her kingdom crumbled, her followers betraying her and regretted. At the end of his life, Rider died young and in his best years, adored by thousands. So in a way, Saber doesn’t feel Rider who had an enviable lifestyle can understand her regrets. Rider mourns, but he doesn’t regret.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Edict View Post
I imagine that aspect is in part intentionally defining of Saber's known identity but would differentiate between necessary and sufficient causes for the outcome. In other words, I suspect there is a dualistic process where, originally, at the end of the day the kingdom withdrew from Saber rather than Saber failing the the kingdom. As above these are wholly different matters that are best clearly demarcated.
Any leader in basic management needs communication skills. Saber lacked them. She didn’t smile (not even to her closest knights), she didn’t talk much, people were at loss what to do because of that. She had withdrawn so much to follow her ideals that people could not understand it anymore. And that brought the downfall of her kingdom.

Without the glue of communication, all systems fall. I should know. I work as a communicator. :P

Quote:
Originally Posted by Edict View Post
in these instances it is apparent Iskander is firstly interested in whether he can influence outcome independent of battle. This is not for the furtherance of peace but the expediency of avoiding conflict by the same degrees to what can be accumulated without expending force. The strategy is obvious and it is not surprising that everyone has refused the offer of allowing them to forgo their aims to advance Iskander's.
The best thing for Iskandar would have been killing Saber, Lancer and Berserker in episode 5 when he had that opening. Or grievously damaged them. He pretty much told Saber he just saved her because he felt like (out of good will) and shrugged off any strategy or scheme he had.

This good nature of his is a flaw, IMO. Because Servants MUST die to have their wish granted. Rider seems stubborn to avoid this because of his ‘greedy’ nature.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Edict View Post
across examples of past and presen events Iskander has either actively or passively facilitated conflict where it serves purposes or when diplomacy in direction with his objectives are not to be met. The usurped kingdoms were retained (with Iskander as king) being the foundation of his unit , the lands returned were already conquered, those who joined him thereafter had no more to gain than to side with the one who had taken away (to belabour a point you have made - reorientated...) their previous (...notions of...) existence.
Iskandar was always in the move. He left and never looked back. He was a ‘king’ who didn’t administrate and rule them. He left his systems intact and went on with his people. The way Iskandar’s army is described isn’t about warriors or heroes or kings, but actual youthful travelers, siblings in a dream of world-trekking wonder, who just happened to be generals, kings and heroes.

The ones who joined realized they too wanted to explore the world. It was that dream of childhood they cast away to embrace their titles and joyless duties. They joined Iskandar because he show them what they really wanted: see the edge of the world.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Edict View Post
as it is however, just about any interpretation of these events and their causes will be determined in relation to Iskander's expressed intention. Though there is some room to interpret otherwise doing so has to ignore a range of statements concerning long-term intentions and possible procedures to those ends.
His intention is in the narrative. There is no interpretation but actual text? It’s spelled aloud.

Saber and Rider in the end do seek the same: a utopia. Saber’s Utopia is Avalon, unreachable heaven of peace and ideal quietness. Rider’s utopia is Oceanus, the boundless journey in motion to delight of what there is of good and thriving in life. That's why she stayed, trying to build her country into that vision. That's why he left, trying to extend his kingdom until he could find his vision. Both are worthy dreams. Different but well natured, rooted in the beliefs of their eras and contexts. To fulfill them, both have spilled blood. Arthuria and Iskandar are fundamentally noble characters who love their followers and are super idealistic people.

Their wishes reflect that, Saber wants to revert the destruction but for what? Yeah. Rider wants another chance to live, but for what? Yeah. Conquest/fighting off invading armies were means, not goals.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Edict View Post
there is certainly some difficulty in knowing what to assume of a heroes' identity as it pertains to their purported history and namesake. The issue is probably further confounded because different heroes share approximation with the historical figure to varying degrees of relevance. In some cases semblance would appear to be limited to periods of their known identity, whereas in others it is the tradition and mythos which the hero personifies.
You slowly discover that when the story enfolds.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ithekro View Post
With the Cult of Personality, as seen no only in his Army, but also the effect his has on the audience, Rider could take over the world without a lot of bloodshed.

(snip)

He probably doesn't need his army. All he needs is the right sort of political backing, either from a major country, or if he's really good, revamp the UN until people want him to lead them. Where they want what he wants, and he wants what they want.

This too. Alexander has rank A charisma... Just atop as it goes. Any living politician has... lower than rank E (except maybe that Clinton guy?!), Nasuverse wise lawl. So he will win over the crowds pretty easily.

I think Waver mentions that Rider is really adaptable to the modern lifestyle.
__________________

"Who would understand you after I die? Who else would march forward by your side?"

Last edited by Thess; 2012-01-15 at 05:13.
Thess is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-01-19, 10:12   Link #365
Edict
Member
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
I've combined statements and rearranged others to organise responses, please correct me if I have misconstrued or overlooked something important to the discussion at hand.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Thess
Anyway, none of the kings ever mentions the people outside their army. At most, there are mentions in Fate of the villages Saber destroyed in her own country to support her military units overseas.

one of the kings differs quintessentially in their emphasis of just rule and protection of all as defining of the king''s true duties. As before, without knowing intentions or the the context, I cannot specifically comment on the actions described. Though it isn't all that appropriate to unknowingly speculate about specific ideas, a tentative guess is that purpose was not one of conquest but presumably to quell or meet an oncoming threat in advance of incursion.


Quote:
They are treasured because he puts the bond between them as his most cherished possession....She envied Rider because he could bond with his followers personally while she couldn’t. If you want to sum her strength, is on the glory/ideals, Iskandar's strength is on relationships/bonds, while Archer's strength is on treasures....There are also contextual differences but that is the gap between them.

if I understand the background then Saber believed that adhering to the paragon of kinghood would entail loyalty and respect, which can be thought true yet fully understanding just what the same means -- even with the upmost intent -- cannot be so impossibly simple. The ideal king is not simply the ideal saint or knight (as Saber had first expected) but one who in knowing how ideals relate to and thereby enrich humanity unites virtue with understanding. I would surmise Saber's act to be king not only superseded her human life with its idealised aspirations but fate of the same as well.


Quote:
Any leader in basic management needs communication skills. Saber lacked them. She didn’t smile (not even to her closest knights), she didn’t talk much, people were at loss what to do because of that. She had withdrawn so much to follow her ideals that people could not understand it anymore. And that brought the downfall of her kingdom.

it would seem probable then that the outcome reflects the multiplicity of influences with their culminating not in misunderstanding but lack of reciprocal unity. If Saber's commitment both upheld and safeguarded the kingdom, yet the same was not duly reciprocated then it becomes no longer possible to serve in the fullest capacity. As the one given to rule by the sword, and having shown this much in deed rather than speech, predicaments, as they were, somehow contrived on the later belie divisions that would not be so casually resolved though any amendment of misunderstanding.


Quote:
The best thing for Iskandar would have been killing Saber, Lancer and Berserker in episode 5 when he had that opening. Or grievously damaged them. He pretty much told Saber he just saved her because he felt like (out of good will) and shrugged off any strategy or scheme he had.

This good nature of his is a flaw, IMO. Because Servants MUST die to have their wish granted. Rider seems stubborn to avoid this because of his ‘greedy’ nature.

haha well it is noteworthy that a few heroes share a value for battle on an even field. Tactically speaking Iskander chancing an attack could have polarised what was a transitioning set of arrangements. Whereas interjecting at the time he did restored the previous status quo as it was already predisposed (i.e. to battle each other) and if nothing else continued the opportunity to better gauge the capabilities of those involved.


Quote:
His intention is in the narrative. There is no interpretation but actual text? It’s spelled aloud.

explicit formulations (e.g. the king's speeches of episode 11) tend to frame attributions (ideas, motivations, acts etc), in conjunction with an expectation of holistic structure not all abstractions however astute are going to be consonant. Elucidation of Iskander's aspirations and his (in)actions evince a pattern of character concept which varies in cogency with the otherwise prima facie propensity to consign nations to war if deemed expedient. Depending on how these polarities are perceived a basis for contradiction of one form or other is somewhat ascertainable. Furthermore, although the writing could perforce subsume characteristics to aid consistency the rendition is at times construed to avoid outright portrayal of tyranny, such as incidental wars of conquest, whilst at others lapses into less equivocal depictions. Which taken as an observation of character concept not so soundly combined into a single representation would partially denote disparities for what they are.

in short, with consideration of the text's apparent divergences (and/or liberal composition), it becomes sufficiently reasonable to arrive at an appreciation of concepts independent of their (conceivably discrepant) orientation. Of course individual appraisal determines whether that is necessary or useful concerning Iskander's multifaceted characterisation.

Last edited by Edict; 2012-01-19 at 10:43.
Edict is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-01-26, 05:56   Link #366
SnEptUne
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
This episode really catch my attention, not because of the animation or plot, but the discussion between the three knights. I share exactly the same view-point of Saber, and I fully expected to walk the path of solitude of high virtue, and to sacrify my life for the world. However, what rider said is also correct, in the I do not expect any normal people would want / like to live this kind of life. In that case, it only means that being a king will be very different from what our world are expecting. Just because most people will not like to live these kinds of lives do not mean it cannot exist (it just means most people would not like to be a king), and that it does not mean society will collape because of a person's self-less delication to others.
SnEptUne is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-12-20, 21:10   Link #367
Stanfoo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
At the end of this episode, Saber mentioned that there was a knight of the roundtable who left because he felt she did not understand her people. Who was the knight?
Stanfoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-12-20, 21:42   Link #368
Cherry_Lover
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Age: 30
I'm not sure if Nasu is talking about a real knight from the legend there, or if he's just saying that some such knight exists. It might possibly be Mordred, though, although if it were you'd expect him to be referred to as more than just "a knight".
__________________
Come to forums.darksidemoon.net, a new Type-Moon forum.
Cherry_Lover is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-12-20, 22:27   Link #369
Rising Dragon
Goat Herder
*Author
 
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: The middle of the Middle of Nowhere
Age: 27
Given the foreshadowing, I think Saber was referring to Berserker.
__________________
Rising Dragon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-12-20, 23:02   Link #370
Stanfoo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
One thing going against Berserker though is that he left because of his affair with Guinevere, not because of the reason Saber stated (even though he does share those sentiments).

Damn this vagueness, I wish there was a clear cut answer to this. I have to know!
Stanfoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-12-20, 23:07   Link #371
GDB
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Age: 28
We know it's not Berserker, because in the Irisviel specials it shows his reaction to the other knight turning their back on Saber.

I originally thought it was him too until that. Afterwards, I figured Mordred, but after reading about the actual lore more, I don't think that's the case either. Mordred was able to lead the coup and take the throne because he was a respected knight of the round table. If he had abandoned his post, in a sense, then I don't see the people flocking to him as they did. Other knights, perhaps, but not the people.

Thus, I believe it's like Cherry Lover said, and it's just some nameless knight. After all, depending on the version of lore, the Round Table had between 150 and 380 some knights. It's not like it was a 12-man squad or anything where we'd know all their names.
GDB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-12-22, 17:17   Link #372
Cherry_Lover
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Age: 30
Yeah, Lancelot never left her voluntarily. He was essentially thrown out.
__________________
Come to forums.darksidemoon.net, a new Type-Moon forum.
Cherry_Lover is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 18:35.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
We use Silk.