And you would be against rando human making the same choice? Because point of "muh ghost" argument is that any rando that tried to it would be perfectly fine as long as he was "human", and not "ghost".
Type Moon General
Sightedjt
Everlasting Flames
And causing all these debates is the real reason why amakusa was a villain and needed his teeth kicked in.
- Location
- In you're house RIGHT NOW!
Well remember that servants have updated info on the modern day and most of them choose to have updated views as well.
I mean doesn't the 'muh ghost' argument fall apart when you have extra and extella lying round?
Seihai-kun
[Unverified Wish Granting Device]
- Location
- Brasil
I thought the point of "muh ghost" is that they're not from this time and thus do not perfectly get modern society.
Depends on what kind of knowledge they get. There's a few shenanigans in Hollow Ataraxia derived from the Servant's thinking not being from this time, for example.
Still wouldn't trust to any random as much as I wouldn't trust any random ghost, anti-vaxxers exist after all.
fallacies
Puyo Mage
"I feel that the entire setting and all of the characters in it are essentially worthless, and worthy of eye-rolls."
Alright. That's fine. Your tastes are your own. But I feel like coming to the Nasu thread and complaining about elements of the franchise for a couple of pages is a bit counterproductive if your intention is to "give up on the Nasuverse."
Last edited:
- Location
- In you're house RIGHT NOW!
I mean by that argument no one should be trusted than?
Seihai-kun
[Unverified Wish Granting Device]
- Location
- Brasil
As I said a few pages ago, I hate humanity in general, so I'm biased when I say "no, no one should be trusted".
Sightedjt
Everlasting Flames
Correct. No one person should be given that power over the lives of everyone
- Location
- In you're house RIGHT NOW!
I mean If I had a choice I'd just make it so biological immortality is possible and you get the choice to opt in or out.
Everyone gets a choice than, Tho I would like to see if authors like nasu will stay idealogically consistent.
- Location
- Plato's Cave
Sunk Cost Fallacy, apparently. I asked them the same question last page.
Point of muh ghost is that, by definition, you would trust non-ghost person to do it. Otherwise you can just say that no one should make that kind of choice, which is an actual argument. Story specifically presented ones ghostness as relevant and crucial quality.
Distinction is completely arbitrary, especially since ghost in question spent more time in modern world than majority of it's inhabitants.
Wrong. Coming into the thread and explicitly listing reasons as to why you dislike the setting is the perfect conversation starter. You can point out why he is wrong or what he got wrong, and maybe turn his viewpoint around. Especially as these reasons were brought numerous times prior as critique of Nasu works.
What is shit is people dogpilling him without trying to engage the subject, and as such littering thread with no effort posts.
fallacies
Puyo Mage
I mean, given that the incipient post was essentially, "I think something you people apparently find worthwhile is generally worthless," I'm not entirely sure anything productive can come of this ...
- Location
- In you're house RIGHT NOW!
And by a lot of criteria most servants are 'modern' due to being fucking clones.
fallacies
Puyo Mage
Most of the time, they acknowledge themselves as being dead, explicitly.
It doesn't really matter that they seem like clones to you.
Within the context of the setting, they functionally aren't.
WildCardFool
A Reaction Pic for nearly every occasion
- Location
- Earth
You know, I've always had a question(s) about the whole immortality for everyone thing.
Namely, wouldn't that cause overpopulation? I mean, sure humans might no longer need food so that's not necessarily an issue. But people'd still try to hunt animals and stuff to eat, if only for enjoyment, so I'd imagine that food either becomes a massive luxury or we hunt animals out of existence, throwing the ecosystem out of balance.
And then there's the whole limited space thing. Many countries are already suffering from this, and while we have a space program some could say we could fall back on, would it get advanced enough quickly enough? Or would we end up all crammed together as more and more humans come into existence?
As for immortality itself, is it the no-disease no physical hardship kind, or the "you cannot die no matter what happens" kind where theoretically evil enough people could just torture you, and others in comas wouldn't be able to die so they'd just remain as vegetables for all of eternity? Hell, we may even get some real life Deadpools that are just walking cancer tumors.
...Looking back on this I may be a slight bit pessimistic about this topic.
Namely, wouldn't that cause overpopulation? I mean, sure humans might no longer need food so that's not necessarily an issue. But people'd still try to hunt animals and stuff to eat, if only for enjoyment, so I'd imagine that food either becomes a massive luxury or we hunt animals out of existence, throwing the ecosystem out of balance.
And then there's the whole limited space thing. Many countries are already suffering from this, and while we have a space program some could say we could fall back on, would it get advanced enough quickly enough? Or would we end up all crammed together as more and more humans come into existence?
As for immortality itself, is it the no-disease no physical hardship kind, or the "you cannot die no matter what happens" kind where theoretically evil enough people could just torture you, and others in comas wouldn't be able to die so they'd just remain as vegetables for all of eternity? Hell, we may even get some real life Deadpools that are just walking cancer tumors.
...Looking back on this I may be a slight bit pessimistic about this topic.
Last edited:
all fictions
I hate you! (it's not against the rules!)
- Location
- Mons Regius
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Explain how, when Last Encore makes literally the same point.
You can make him do whatever you want in your fantasy.
- Location
- In you're house RIGHT NOW!
fallacies
Puyo Mage
Yes, really.
Even if the word there were literally クローン -- which it isn't -- the storyline makes it clear that it doesn't mean that they're considered to be "alive" in any way that matters to the Human Order.
Last edited:
My own problem with Apo, and Nasu works in general, is that it follows that limp dicked trend where they want to be hip and add some "moral ambiguity" by having villain have "heroic" goal, except they also have him do dumbest evil shit because audience needs to hate him, while hero does nothing but go "the right thing is to protect status quo!" and then stab designated villain in the face. Author using villain to strawman shit optional, but desired.
Like, I understand that villains need to be the ones driving the plot, but come on! Give heroes some agency! Have them actually try and make world the better place instead of just fucking their harm and killing odd monster that randomly decided to show up in their neighborhood.
Gudao being extra fucking worthless in this sense is triggering me to no end. He is SI, we get it, but let him do something.
Like, I understand that villains need to be the ones driving the plot, but come on! Give heroes some agency! Have them actually try and make world the better place instead of just fucking their harm and killing odd monster that randomly decided to show up in their neighborhood.
Gudao being extra fucking worthless in this sense is triggering me to no end. He is SI, we get it, but let him do something.
Xoroth
Over the Hills and through the Felfire...
You don't want ghosts leading you because they don't learn. It's been hammered in that servants are karmically bound to their fate. They're more like walking and talking history books.
Ignoring immortality debate since I already posted about that. All you need to know why Amakusa is a villain is that he wants to remove the "evils of man".
Also, nice strawman but to act on your example: a kid dying of disease would motivate someone to do something about it. Might not help the kid but itlli help future kids. It's not like the peaceful 1st world countries didn't go through that exact process.
Ignoring immortality debate since I already posted about that. All you need to know why Amakusa is a villain is that he wants to remove the "evils of man".
Also, nice strawman but to act on your example: a kid dying of disease would motivate someone to do something about it. Might not help the kid but itlli help future kids. It's not like the peaceful 1st world countries didn't go through that exact process.
- Location
- Ukraine
Well, I would not go that far. I'd rather have a Shiki-like protagonist (either Shiki works) who does not really care for making the world better but has an interesting character arc than... Kiritsugu. Or Artoria, for that matter. Seriously, it's like you cannot be a hero without either screwing up or being screwed up in the Nasuverse.
Only, regardless of the authors kinda insisting on it, this statement is quite inconsistent with the actual narratives we are presented - we have Servants in F/GO who have learned from their past summonings, who have been changed by their experiences after becoming a Heroic Spirit; in most cases, the fact that they have learned is of at least some importance to their characterization and/or the plot. Case in point: Avicebron.
Last edited:
No one ever mentioned "leading" but you bud, mostly because you can't engage actual argument so you choose to shift goals instead. Needless to say, ability to learn has nothing to do with competence of making a choice at given time, and as such it doesn't make non-ghosts any more qualified than ghost when it comes to making educated choices.
Which is nothing but in built strawman so we can't take his logic as valid. In particular, it shifts argument from "immortality is bad" to "this particular villain is written in such way that his goal is malicious". Basically, Nasu wanted to present his views as something worthy fighting against, so we cheered when Sieg stopped him.
Except "death and suffering is bad" is pretty common sentiment to grand majority of people, wanting to retroactively save everyone is admirable and adding vague line that can be taken as whatever you want only exists as form of saving throw when Higahshied realized that no one buys Sieg's bullshit.
Reminds me of Red Son, heh.
"And so Superman created perfect utopia"
"Uh, shouldn't communism be bad?"
"Fuck, um, make him listen to Braniac's evil plans for no reason whatsoever"
"Genius!"
I'm not sure what kind of point are you making here, really. I mean, I think I do, but it's so endlessly fucking dumb that I will give you benefit of doubt and ask for clarification.
Like, surely you don't think that people suffering just to "motivate" other people is something to strive for, in case where such suffering can be avoided, absolutely and utterly? I'm sure my boy Issac made this point quite well some time ago.
I'm not sure I get that complaint in regard to Gudao? As in, Gudao lacking agency. Like, in Part 1 he's a member of a United Nations founded pseudo time-travel squad that proactively intervenes in harmful time shenanigans as they appear and in doing so stops a time apocalypse. In Part 2, said organization is being retired due to it's purpose being fulfilled, but an assault from the traitor squad and a sudden alien apocalypse makes the protagonist needed once again. Said protagonist then sets out with what remains of his team to defeat the forces of the alien aggressor and restore the devastated modern world.
The impetus for action still initially comes from an external threat, but it's to a degree that's pretty typical for fictional protagonists, especially within apocalyptic fiction. The basic set up is basically the same as every doomsday asteroid movie for instance. Furthermore, within the singularities themselves Guda often plays a key role in gathering allies, and on occasion even acts in a more physical manner. Such as acting as bait to lure Heracles to the Ark of the Covenant in Okeanos. Gudao isn't breaking any boundaries, but he's also not an especially bad example of protagonist agency.
This is compounded by the fact that Chaldea is essentially a very specific supernatural emergency response organization. The plot sets up the protagonist and their backer to be a reactionary entity in the same sense that firefighters are. When Chaldea finds a fire, they put it out, and until then they're on standby ready to act. In addition to establishing the general format of Part 1, that institutional nature also plays a key part in the instigation of the Lostbelt plot, as the fact that the Chaldea has fulfilled their purpose prompts the downsizing and restructuring that weakens them to the crypter assault.
Xoroth
Over the Hills and through the Felfire...
It's hardly shifting goal posts since the whole thing is "ghosts shouldn't decide for us" which is idk? Leading? Also, just because the spirit can learn from a single instance doesn't mean that they've overcome their karma. They won't make the exact same mistake but they'll make a similar one again and again unless it's something super basic like forgetting their keys one time but even then. Decent chacch it'll happen again. Servants are designed to be relatively static. They make good advisors but often lack context which colors their mind set. Even if they have modern knowledge they don't fully understand or don't want to understand our view point. I certainly don't think a returned King Arthur should be my king.
Didn't I just say I didn't want to talk about immorality? It may be a strawman to you but it's his character. I can't pick and choose characterization. Him removing free will is his character. I'd hardly call a world where I can't be myself a utopia but if you want to be vegetable then you do you.
Let me make this easy for you then. Suffering is both positive and negative. You can't have too much suffering since it's mostly negative and it's fine do everything you can to mitigate it. Every action in this world is bent toward mitigating suffering in some way shape or form. I'm using a very broad definition of suffering but that's how it is. Suffering is motivation toward everything. It's neither inherently good or bad. It's just the paradigm not something to strive for but not avoided out of hand either. So no, I'm not saying people should suffer to motivate others but I am saying people have suffered to produce peaceful places.
Vanargand
So tired.....
Meanwhile I am just
World-ending issues aside Ophelia was kinda of a bitch to Surtr-kun (joke) and most of her characters basically consisted of being really thirsty for Mashu and Kirshtaria
I kinda stopped pondering about whatever the shit Nasu and his harem of shitty writers try to pass of as deep and just enjoy the characters
World-ending issues aside Ophelia was kinda of a bitch to Surtr-kun (joke) and most of her characters basically consisted of being really thirsty for Mashu and Kirshtaria
I kinda stopped pondering about whatever the shit Nasu and his harem of shitty writers try to pass of as deep and just enjoy the characters