Fate is about summoning magical stuff to help you, Goetia is a summon that decided to burn everything down instead.
Type Moon General
- Location
- Ireland
- Pronouns
- He/Him
IIRC Mats IV specified that it only protects from Man and Star Servants.
fallacies
Puyo Mage
Beyond what @Squirtodyle already stated:
Given this phrasing, it's likely that Tiamat wouldn't possess resistance against the Noble Phantasms of the Lostbelt Servants.In-Game Material said:
Last edited:
Wasn't Roman's wish granted at the same time as Billy's?
As I remember it, the incineration was a chain reaction starting backwards from 2016, with Lev (the final Pillar) as a trigger. I've also heard Lev managed to find a way to kill himself in Cases.
So I'm imagining Billy wishing for the funds and, by securing a future where Lev would busy himself working at Chaldea, unwittingly preventing Lev's self-termination.
fallacies
Puyo Mage
It's possible that there was more than one trigger, and more than one condition requisite to set the stage. For example, Goetia fully intended for Chaldea to exist in some capacity; and Flauros even put in the effort to plant subroutines within Chaldea's systems so as to track down and eliminate Demon Pillars that betrayed the cause of the collective.
Last edited:
I'd completely forgotten about the subroutines, though I guess it makes my point stronger?
To clarify, my main intention is to present an alternative as to why Solomon only saw the incineration right when the wish was being granted. This isn't the first time I saw someone suggesting Roman's wish was a requirement to Goetia's plan, but I felt it clashed with Goetia's utter bewilderment at learning of Roman's wish. Heck, he was surprised Solomon had a wish at all (and so was Solomon, at the time).
My interpretation:
Tiamat. Apoptosis by the reclaiming/denial of the child by the mother. Inverted Genesis.
Kiara. Apoptosis by enlightenment (i.e. individual/active cultivation of wisdom) upon a false path/wireheading. Inverted mass Enlightenment.
Beast VI. Apoptosis by being led passively to death or effective death. Inverted Salvation - the passive reception of grace.
And Goetia. Apoptosis by betrayal by one's ideal; the legends, principles, and fantasies - the embodied wishes/demons of mankind - one Summons to aid you themselves betraying you. Inverted Summoning of the Heroic Spirits.
-- Though by this argument, a hypothetical summon of UBW route Shirou should get super-effective damage against Mr. Drown In Your Ideals And Die here ...
Last edited:
fallacies
Puyo Mage
Given that Goetia happens to exist in a world that came of or was premised upon Solomon's wish, it's also possible that he himself isn't intimately familiar with all of the conditions necessary to set his stage. Grand Order Material gives that he possesses Clairvoyance EX because it was a feature inherent to the flesh of Solomon, which he now possesses; but that doesn't necessarily give that he saw or can see absolutely everything.
Last edited:
- Location
- SV's Only Complete Persona Quest
- Pronouns
- She/Her
For a potential Quest I'm trying to find an English translation or equivalent of Tohsaka. Based on what results I could find I'm thinking something like 'Crest', 'Hillcrest' or 'Farhill', though again I don't know how accurate these'd be.
MiracleGrow
Miracles for only $19.99 [They/Them]
- Location
- DOOR STUCK DOOR STUCK PLEASE I BEG U
I had a dream where Hank Hill was a father figure to Shiki.
"Death Eye's of perception I tell you what"
"Death Eye's of perception I tell you what"
BrokenAscendent
Unum prae omnibus aliis
- Location
- Auld Lang Syne
Shiki can kill gasoline prices ;p
GaRbS
The wait was worth it
- Location
- Venezuela
Why are you telling me something I already know? lol.
That's the thing, Shirou says it is still invisible.
I did Google '3 Great Writers' and '3 Great Children's Authors' but found no result. What search terms did you use?
Pook Press considers him as high, though they're a more niche publisher and focused mainly on what they consider 'English relevant fables'.
History of Literature the group however doesn't consider Aesop or Grimm, but instead calls 'the greats' of children focused literature Hans, Seuss, Dickens, Carroll.
I'm sure if you can look hard enough you can find various different groupings different publishers and organizations consider the greats.
There's lots of different publishers and groups of various sizes, many with similar and very different opinions.
Fair enough. I can see why some could view Shakespeare as not child friendly. That's definitely a valid and correct viewpoint.
Though I feel as if it isn't as if there is some widespread consensus on the idea, or that other views are invalid or not correct. From a quick search I found various different opinions.
Though the British Department of Education and Culture did pass some suggestions a few years ago to teach elementary and even primary students Shakespeare's original text. It wasn't a forced mandate, but rather a strong suggestion. At least some seem to feel its suitable for children, or at least it seems subjective enough for some. There's also intermediate views that are mentioned less as well, but I feel those are also valid views as well.
The language is hard, but that's mostly because its outdated.
A lot of it is old slang and grammar construction. Similarly, Grimm fables that they collected did have outdated vocabulary as well, old slang, regional slang, as well as much darker scenes. Many of the stories Grimm collected would not be considered child friendly or for children by many people these days, due to subject material and difficulty of reading old text that many might have. The German text is rather difficult to deal with at times.
Most modern versions of the fables are heavily modified and update to be more comprehensible to people using modern English, modern slang, and others. As well as much lighter or shorter plot summaries. Like a Disney version of a story. There are various adaptations of this in modern media, of Grimm, Shakespeare and others. Children's picture books, animation, audio books, play sets and others.
Though even the original text, if it isn't understood by children entirely, can still get the overall point from a basic read, even without the more modernized 'translation'.
What is 'child friendly' is definitely very subjective though, and depends on culture, time period, and individuals.
As do official age ratings. For example, Call of Duty is rated PEGI 18, but one of their main audience is children. In actual products bought, marketing, and others. Various Activision executives have said that children are one of their core audiences. Pop culture, COD is often associated to children and childish behavior, such as online taunting by young people with open mic.
Children who might not comprehend all the scenes, but still can get the overall idea, or just still view it.
I wouldn't say that for certain. Shakespeare's main audience was upper to middle class for his core, and they often brought children along. Theater was a main source of entertainment for children at the time. Along with other activities like public executions. The idea of child friendly did change a lot. Rousseau I think was one of the first major philosophers and psychologist equivalent to argue about it and was listened, by at least a few. Likely many more.
Last edited:
Grue
滅亡迅雷
- Location
- -
Aesop, Grimm and Andersen IIRC are all fundamentally fairytale 'authors', which have grown an association with children. Meanwhile, Shakespeare is a playwright whos plays weren't intended for children, and in general haven't become associated as children's tales. Therefore Shakespeare doesn't make sense as one of the "Three great childrens writers".
- Location
- Mountains and rivers
That's strange, because I've heard at least two professors of literature say that they're considered that trio. Both of them tend to teach official material (or what is recognized as correct by legislative bodies) rather than do their own thing.
Anyway, not like the information matters much. Certainly not hundreds of words of debate.
The fables collected by the brothers were partially cautionary tales for children and partially the history, folklore, and identity of the people. There was controversy over such dark stories being included among those for children, but they did caution parents to steer their children toward the friendlier stories (inasmuch that applies to cautionary tales). So to speak, the stories the children were allowed to read depended on their caretakers' opinion on their maturity.
Last edited:
BrokenAscendent
Unum prae omnibus aliis
- Location
- Auld Lang Syne
You really should stop asking questions if you know the answers ;p
fallacies
Puyo Mage
You're going more and more off-topic, and this isn't content relevant to the subject of this thread. Nasu laid out the Word of God who the Three Authors are within the context of his writing; and Shakespeare is not amongst them.
Last edited:
Fair enough.
To clarify my point.
I don't have a problem with Nasu picking his Three Authors. I think its an interesting title.
Or some people thinking Shakespeare is not for children.
What I was disagreeing with was that no one thinks Shakespeare can be for children, which is what I thought people were saying.
I have never heard those figures grouped together specially, at least not apart from others.
If you feel it doesn't matter much though or are not interested in talking about it much, I'll leave the topic alone.
Thanks for informing me of what you were aware of.
Fables and 'fairy tales' have their own specific weight and implication behind those words, at least for some people. I've seen stuff branded 'modern fairy tales' but it never catches on widely.
I'm not sure if there is a misunderstanding here, but I agree with what you say overall.
I do agree Grimm and Aesop and Andersen's tales are often classified as 'fairy tales' and in modern context have more 'kid friendly' adaptations (like Disney films).
And I agree that he's less associated as child focused by most people currently.
My point was that at least a few think he's child friendly enough.
And could potentially be considered one if a writer had wanted to.
Along with other FGO characters like Scheherazade and Nursery Rhyme.
Though Scheherazade is a fictional narrator, she is treated as an 'author' in some works I've seen.
And Nursery is a personification of a genre and books themselves, she could also be seen as a 'creator' of the stories.
I was looking at simply the characters already as Servants, like in FGO thus far, and wondering who could qualify under the potential criteria, before the identity of the 'Three Authors' was named in a later post in this thread.
Are then any other author Servants in Fate franchise so far?
Bunyan and Xuanzang Sanzang I think is associated with literature and fables.
Nobu did write but isn't known for it.
Last edited:
all fictions
I hate you! (it's not against the rules!)
- Location
- Mons Regius
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Alexandre Dumas in Strange Fake.
Seihai-kun
[Unverified Wish Granting Device]
- Location
- Brasil
Wait what? Really? Then I don't remember that scene correctly anymore.
Nidhoggr
Suletta Permetta
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Mystic Eyes of "That's My Purse, I Don't Know You!"
BrokenAscendent
Unum prae omnibus aliis
- Location
- Auld Lang Syne
Screenshot sauce would help refresh everyone's memories I'm sure.
fallacies
Puyo Mage
No, not really.
And we were only ever talking about whether Shakespeare is generally considered a children's writer in the context of the modern English-speaking world.
Also, you don't seem very familiar with the historical context of the Globe.
Children were never Shakespeare's intended audience.
He didn't "intend" his works to be primarily consumed by children, and his works were not designed with the intent to appeal to them.
Even as the primary source of his patronage was literally royalty, his theater was situated in Southwark, which was at the time a red light district. Actors and dramatists in Elizabethan Britain held the reputation of being drunkards, louts, and good-for-nothings, regardless of the mass appeal across the social classes that Shakespeare personally managed to attain. Outside of upper-class patrons looking for a good time at the theaters, Shakespeare's primary audience were the sort of people you would expect to find in a red light district. In fact, the seating area that occupied the floor of the Globe immediately before the stage was explicitly intended for the lower classes.
This was one of the reasons that upper-class women who attended theater sometimes wore face-masks -- so as not to damage their reputation by being seen in a theater audience.
"But the audience sometimes brought their children," you say -- and indeed, there wasn't anything that barred the patrons from doing precisely that. There were even children that managed to pay their way into the groundlings' seating area. However, the fact of their presence doesn't magically turn them into the intended audience of Shakespeare's works. It would be like saying that because 13-year-olds go on internet to look for pornography, the intended audience of pornography is 13-year-olds.
Also, the majority of those educators that you reference don't actually present Shakespeare as-is, in the original text. This is a matter of fact that you can independently confirm by googling up the teaching materials for Shakespeare intended for low-teens and preteens. If those teachers really believed that Shakespeare could be accepted by children in its default state, they wouldn't bother sanitizing it.
But as I said, this is veering off-topic. It would be hypocritical of me to tell you to take it elsewhere after attempting to put in a last word -- but seriously, this thread isn't the place for it.
Last edited:
GaRbS
The wait was worth it
- Location
- Venezuela
Reread my question properly, jackass. I didn't ask why Saber's sword is invisible, I asked if Alter's still is, because it can be clearly seen in the sprites and CGs, despite the fact that Shirou once said it was invisible.
Last edited:
fallacies
Puyo Mage
So, what was the point of asking the question in the first place?
I mean, you clearly already know that it was some sort of contradiction between text and artwork on Type-Moon's part.
What was it that you hoped to obtain from the people who attempted to answer your question?
The grounds to rightly call them out for being wrong about whatever?
Last edited: