contradiction at the end
it says "the great grail summons the original substance of the hero, and then returns it to the throne of heros" but then later it says "but it is unknown if servants are also copies"
i wont edit it...but this is just a FYI for someone who feels that they can58.107.9.235 04:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- 大聖杯が『向こう側』への門を開く方法からするとサーヴァントは本体を召還しているので敗北すると英霊の座に還る [...] しかしサーヴァントも使い捨てクローンであるという記述もあり、本体かどうかの断定は難しい。
- That's how it's said. "Summon the real form then it goes back to the Throne when it's killed, but it's also said that they might be only displosable clones afterall, so it's not completely sure".
- ... It's probably the wording. The "also" in "aren't also disposable clones" isn't the meaning of "they are the original, but clones as well" which indeed doesn't make much sense. It's in the meaning "maybe they, too, are clones". "Also" here in comparison with the sentence just before that goes "any other method is a copy". --Byakko 21:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- maybe means soul is taken from throne of heros, but body/physical manifestation is a clone of what they were like when they were alive? that solves any problems 58.107.9.235 02:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I think that it is necessary, and not changing it will actually cause misinformation. Here are the justifications comparing what has changed.
- "...someone who became a hero by his own power and is worshiped for that..." Heroic spirits are still not Gods, I don't think you worship them. You admire them, yes, but not offer-prayers-and-sacrifice kind of worship.
- "...unknown hero that realized a great feat thanks to the..." There is no change in the content here except the rewording such that reading is smoother.
- "Those who made a pact with the World (in this case Alaya, AKA Arayashiki) under the terms of offering his services as Heroic Spirit after death in exchange for receiving a miracle during his lifetime." Fragmentation, sentence not really complete. No content has been changed.
- "The ones who appear on the site of great disasters in order to eliminate the source of that disasters and all those involved, even if the target of elimination is humans themselves." Fragmentation, more polishing. Again, no content changed.
- "Unbound by moral values such as good and evil, they exterminate guilty and innocent alike in order to protect those completely unrelated." Contradiction. If you're unrelated, then you're also innocent, am I right? You can't 'exterminate the innocent' to 'protect the unrelated' since that would be contradicting each other.
- "...the time that they were alive." This can be shortened into one word that everybody understands.
- "...become part of the Counter Force even if his myth is forgotten." 'Myth' is a rather harsh word since some heroes actually existed. Legend, on the other hand, is more appropriate. --Undisputed seraphim 02:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)Insert formula here
- "You can't 'exterminate the innocent' to 'protect the unrelated' since that would be contradicting each other. " Erm, no. It's about eliminating those that are on site, including the guilty and the innocents - those who are there, innocent in the matter at hand, but involved. To protect those who are unrelated - those who aren't there, unrelated to the matter at hand. "Unrelated" and "innocent" definitely doesn't mean the same thing. You can be guilty of something without being related to the event the CG is doing some cleaning for, even. That's the whole point of it being mentionned : the Counter Guardians kill innocents. Changing that makes, in fact, the sentence "not bound by moral values" useless. Killing the guilty to protect the innocent is not an example of being "not bound by moral values" (aside from the part about killing people at all, which is, quite frankly, irrelevant, we're not discussing something on a human scale). --Byakko 08:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- As an example of this type of conflict, think about a hostage situation in which a dangerous criminal is holding a innocent person as a human shield to protect himself from the gunshots of a cop. If said cop acted under the same methodology as the Counter Guardians, he would decide to shot both the hostage and the criminal in order to prevent the situation from escalating any further. --Libra00 14:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
---
About the 'Is Emiya a reverse hero?' thing[]
He IS listed in the haneiyuu entry, but his own entry also states that he's not fully a reverse hero. I reverted it back to Archer being off the list for now, but it's pretty much a Nasu flip flop and I don't really care either way. Still, Emiya in the list or not? --CanonRap
Counter Guardian[]
hey, i found something on wikipedia, and i just want to know, if this term is similar to a counter guardian or somewhat? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fravashi Vergilheartnet (talk) 08:47, July 14, 2013 (UTC)
Contradiction between this page and Assassin's (FSN) page[]
This page says heroic spirits didn't have to actually exist:
- "... while those who only existed in myths and legends were born from the gathering of those beliefs even though they didn't exist."
But there's a big fuss made about Assassin (Fate/stay night) never existing:
- "He did not actually exist, so it would be impossible to summon the real thing as a Servant. The person summoned in his place is not a Heroic Spirit, but an existence closer to that of wraiths."
Even with a translated quote from Nasu [1]:
- "If a Master wished to summon Kojiro Sasaki, he would be unable to because Kojiro Sasaki did not exist."
So what gives? --Raijinili (talk) 00:40, October 20, 2014 (UTC)
That's one that always bugged me too.
My friend stipulates that it's likely to do with his being summoned by Medea. Since a Servant summoning a Servant isn't normally supposed to occur.
I also brought up the factor that the heroes of the Assassin class barely qualify as heroes themselves, actually being wraiths, and they're the ones from which the term assassin derives, so a hero with no real basis who is only really suitable to be of the Assassin class, likely doesn't rank much higher than a wraith anyhow.--Hawkeye2701 (talk) 01:00, October 20, 2014 (UTC)
I just think they all exist and Assassin is the only one who doesn't. It says Heracles and Medusa were born by gathering of belief. Divine Spirits are born from that, and Medusa was one before being demoted. Heracles is the son of Zeus, so that's probably what it meant. But they really did exist on Earth and so on. While Kojirou is only a legend. That's my interpretation, anyway. Sandubadear (talk) 01:54, October 20, 2014 (UTC)
Cronology Confusion[]
According to what I've read It says that King Arthur's legends occurs after Seigfried's legend which is estimated to be set around the mid 6th century, so I'm a little confuse. does that mean that Arthur existed in the 7th century or was it late 6th century.Palantian (talk) 05:22, June 8, 2015 (UTC)
- No King Arthur was definately during the late 5th century to late 6th century.Shawn Warrynn (talk) 12:49, June 8, 2015 (UTC)
It says that "Modern weapons grant ease of use with the advantage of "anyone can use them as long as they were trained"" and that "those who use them are "faceless heroes" who lack any qualities because they possess "expertise anyone can achieve through sufficient training"" But wouldn't the same principle apply to past weapons just the same? If you are trained in sword fighting, you'll know how to use a sword with just as much ease as if it were a gun. Anyobody can use a bow just as easily as a sniper rifle, and really perhaps more so since snipers have to strike from far greater ranges, so as long as they're trained so it shouldn't really matter the weapon, they'll have a familiarity with it. Excalibur is as legendary as saber but it doesnt impede her from coming back as a heroic spirit instead of a faceless hero because she's just as legendary. It seems to me that as long as a figure is of significant renown during their time they should be able to become a heroic spirit. If there aren't any heroic spirits from the future then it seems more likely its because the power of a heroic spirit is determined by "the popularity they attained after death" then obviously those whom have never existed yet have no popularity at all and therefore no basis to exist at all.50.135.124.85 01:38, August 12, 2015 (UTC)
Yes and no. It takes far longer to obtain proficiency with a sword than with a gun. Similarly so, one can obtain proficiency with a sword, but they'll never wield Excalibur. This is taken to greater extremes when you consider that Excalibur and other Noble Phantasms were the super weapons of their day, that the equivalent in modern armaments is Nuclear weapons, and they require no real training, just the right procedure on a computer. While I agree, one can certainly gain proficiency with anything through training and repitition and there are some truly exceptional people in the modern era when it comes to firearms and the like, they're far more common than heroes who gained similar proficiency, and even then, the weapon they wield is more often than not, a mass-produced impliment, hardly a one of a kind legendary weapon.
To summarize, back then, you might have had Kojirou Sasaki, who famously cut down a swallow in flight, or Arturia Pendragon, wielder of the legendary Excalibur. But these days, it's nearly impossible to build such a reputation, because anything you can achieve is likely doable by somebody else and there's basically no such thing as a unique weapon anymore, so that's not even gonna win you any points at becoming a heroic spirit. Hawkeye2701 (talk) 02:35, August 12, 2015 (UTC)
'One can obtain proficiency with a sword, but they'll never wield Excalibur.' Yah but Arcturia's fame isnt solely connected to the blade. I mean the tale is. But her successes and adventures in all those stories are her own. If she were to become king by any other measure it would still be the tale of the person who united all of Britain.
'One can certainly gain proficiency with anything through training and repitition and there are some truly exceptional people in the modern era when it comes to firearms and the like, they're far more common than heroes who gained similar proficiency' Are there though? Or are there just alot more of us today than back then making things that might once have seemed rare to now appear common? (7 Billion people on this rock and if not one of them can slice a sparrow in half midflight under the same conditions as Kojirou then I'd give away everything I own to the person I hate the most and jump off a bridge.) It seems to me like throughout history there have clearly been millions of people with proficiency in swords out of necessity but none of them are remembered because they never weiled any power or acomplished any deeds. More likely the case is that in the contemporary era most of those whom weild social influence and attract mass attention aren't really 'doers' but talkers so they could hardly become famous for heroism.
'But these days, it's nearly impossible to build such a reputation, because anything you can achieve is likely doable by somebody else and there's basically no such thing as a unique weapon anymore' Well you could say the same thing about these heros though; Gilgamesh was just some Summerian king who liked to boast anybody could've taken power it just happened to be him. I would disagree with their being no unique weapons. Specially made firearms are a thing and if somebody wanted they could (and probably have) make completely unique weapons.
'a unique weapon anymore, so that's not even gonna win you any points at becoming a heroic spirit' I dont feel like thats the basis of becoming a heroic spirit though. Sure weapon skills are an aspect of it but only as far as that makes them feared in battle and renowned in combat not anything to do with the blade though it also makes it legendary. Isnt the makings of a heroic spirit tied up in their deeds and feats? What they accomplished? Then surely the weapon would be irrelevant (past the points gained for mastering it as a skill) so long as they're well known and renowned enough. After all I dont know the blades of any historic figures I can think of other than Arcturia's off the top of my head so it hardly constitutes a basis.
"Those who existed had belief of their deeds gathered upon their deaths and were sublimated into beings of higher rank" On the basis of this as the preconditions for being conisdered a hero then today there are those tales whom could be considered heros for their deeds and significant noterity in actuality or fiction such as the lone ranger who fought outlaws in the rural west and could draw a gun faster than anyone or real life Che Guevara who fought against imperialism across a whole continent. I don't think that Che used any particular weapon like the lone ranger but I also know for a fact that he's remembered far more than a gun.50.135.124.85 14:00, September 1, 2015 (UTC)
By unique weapon, I mean things like Excalibur, Balmung, Gae Bolg. Any weapon that could be made today, even custom ones, don't share traits like that. You'll never have a rifle made from the bones of a sea serpent or a glock that was forged by the fairies. And while you're correct that Arthur's deeds are his/her own and that there are those who rise to the level of heroic spirit without them, there's no doubt that these weapons help. I mean where does Arthur's tale begin? With the sword in the stone. Without these mythic items that create cornerstones of their legends, some heroic spirits don't have a lot going for them.
As for the idea that deeds are less notable simply by population density etc. For one, yes, you have described exactly what a state of 'more common' is. There are more of us, more people with similar proficiency, thus, these skills have become less rare and notable than they once were. As for finding people who can achieve what these heroic spirits did, I feel I have to remind you that by F/SN lore, Kojirou had to bend space/time to cut down a swallow using a sword. So if you can find someone who can do that in the modern era, I'll follow you right off that bridge.
Part of what makes heroic spirits in F/SN is 'mystery' a legend that grows beyond the scope of humanity. In the modern era, where everything is approached scientifically and modern technology makes it possible to track a person's life from beginning to end, it's not likely that you'll get someone believing that Che Guevara threw a spear that impaled a man at 1000 paces and then exploded like a nuke, but the legend of Cu Chulainn grew up like that in an era where people believed that was possible, where the cynicism of mankind was distinctly less than it is now.
The point is, you're comparing how these things develop in entirely different eras. To us tooday, Gilgamesh was 'just' a Sumerian king, he led a tiny piece of the world, barely worth notice, but in his day, he was the king, the ruler of all he surveyed and did insane shit like wrestle divine beasts and fight for days on end with gender confused god golems.
Today, a man is just a man, but then, they could become legends. Now does that mean there'll never be a hero of the modern era? That some one won't one day become a heroic spirit wielding a literal nuke? Who knows, I don't, but just going by what they establish in the story, it's not likely. Hawkeye2701 (talk) 15:12, September 1, 2015 (UTC)
'Who knows, I don't, but just going by what they establish in the story, it's not likely.' Yah, thats probably for the best anyway. Heros from our time of the extraordinary nature would all probably just be jedi knights, superheros, or other anime characters anyway. Though I don't quite think that heroic spirits are particularly limited to feats that require supernatural capabilites. After all, so far as I know, nobody thought Iskandar called down a comet to destroy the Persians or anything. 50.135.124.85 10:41, September 2, 2015 (UTC)