...which culture is that, anyway?
Broadly speaking, I am a citizen of the British Commonwealth, which is headed by Queen Elizabeth II, a post-Restoration monarch of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

More specifically, both my parents are leftists of one stripe or another, though not of the sort who rabidly regard any manner of royalty as The Enemy. Furthermore my father serves in the Canadian Armed Forces, which may technically be said to serve her majesty first and the realm second (though the first time the House of Windsor actually tried to enforce that loyalty against Canada or Britain's Parliament would undoubtedly be the last), so that also complicates the issue.

Also, as a third generation geek, I was raised on the Arthurian mythos, so only one of the three kings of the Fourth Grail War had a ground-floor investment in my earliest conception of kingship.

(For those of you who know which of the three was actually one of my childhood heroes, Alexander the Great is an adventurer, not a king. If you carve out an empire and proceed to let your interns run it, you can be admired for your bravery and military prowess, but not for your administrative capabilities.)

Finally, on a most personal philosophical note, I am a Romantic in the post-Romantic era, meaning I have the benefit of hindsight on all the shit Romanticism has caused.

As a result of all of this, what I expect of a king and what I expect of a leader are two different things, because I don't want a king to be my leader; I want my king to be a king. The Crown as an institution is not the same thing as the person who sits on the throne, the person who sits on the throne is invested temporarily with the power of the Crown and becomes more than what they are. To me, that is what a king should be; a vessel for power, not power raw.

To be honest, I half-pity anyone thrust into that position. As I said - rather indignantly - when a biographer said in an interview that Queen Elizabeth has 'a hard job': "It's not a job, it's her duty. If it were her job and she hated it she could quit."
Wait, Angra Mainyu is a king? When did that happen?
Nah, sorry, that was just me making a slightly grim joke.
 
Last edited:
To be honest, I half-pity anyone thrust into that position. As I said - rather indignantly - when a biographer said in an interview that Queen Elizabeth has 'a hard job': "It's not a job, it's her duty. If it were her job and she hated it she could quit."
TBH, this has always confused me. Doesn't the Queen have very little power? What duties does she have, besides PR and having as much power as the Senate in Imperial Rome?
 
Not sure if it was mentioned earlier but the fan translation for the first volume of Fate Apocrypha was recently finished.
 
Broadly speaking, I am a citizen of the British Commonwealth, which is headed by Queen Elizabeth II, a post-Restoration monarch of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

More specifically, both my parents are leftists of one stripe or another, though not of the sort who rabidly regard any manner of royalty as The Enemy. Furthermore my father serves in the Canadian Armed Forces, which may technically be said to serve her majesty first and the realm second (though the first time the House of Windsor actually tried to enforce that loyalty against Canada or Britain's Parliament would undoubtedly be the last), so that also complicates the issue.

Also, as third generation geek, I was raised on the Arthurian mythos, so only one of the three kings of the Fourth Grail War had a ground-floor investment in my earliest conception of kingship.

Finally, on a most personal philosophical note, I am a Romantic in the post-Romantic era, meaning I have the benefit of hindsight on all the shit Romanticism has caused.

As a result of all of this, what I expect of a king and what I expect of a leader are two different things, because I don't want a king to be my leader; I want my king to be a king. The Crown as an institution is not the same thing as the person who sits on the throne, the person who sits on the throne is invested temporarily with the power of the Crown and becomes more than what they are. To me, that is what a king should be; a vessel for power, not power raw.

To be honest, I half-pity anyone thrust into that position. As I said - rather indignantly - when a biographer said in an interview that Queen Elizabeth has 'a hard job': "It's not a job, it's her duty. If it were her job and she hated it she could quit."

Ah.

As a fellow subject of Her Majesty, I actually would like it if she had some actual leadership power, purely so there was someone slightly outside the political system that could give it a kick if it started acting up too badly. :p

But I'm actually not in total disagreement with you there, although I don't agree with your conclusions, if that makes sense.
 
Ah.

As a fellow subject of Her Majesty, I actually would like it if she had some actual leadership power, purely so there was someone slightly outside the political system that could give it a kick if it started acting up too badly. :p

But I'm actually not in total disagreement with you there, although I don't agree with your conclusions, if that makes sense.
Totally. That's why I made a point of explaining my background really thoroughly; not every base brat in the Commonwealth is me, let alone everyone in the Commonwealth and Britain.
 
Last edited:
Am I the only wants to see Hercules in another class that is not Berserker? Like would him being a Saber give him his club?
 
Saber would have given him a sword, and Herakles is most OP as an Archer. In fact that's why they made him a Berserker otherwise the war would have been 'lol Heracles owns you' and that would be boring.
 
Saber would have given him a sword, and Herakles is most OP as an Archer. In fact that's why they made him a Berserker otherwise the war would have been 'lol Heracles owns you' and that would be boring.
Actually, being Saber doesn't mean he would get a sword (its called out early that Sabers don't necessarily use a sword as their main weapon). And full power Aurtira is, per WoG, able to go toe to toe with him. And of course there is still Gil in the background.

Still hax.
 
Why would he not have God Hand and why would you think that? It's not a piece of equipment or a mount, it's a passive.
Probably you are right... but just feels to OP. You need to take something away from him to balance him out. For example as Saber I except Hercules to have his Nemean Lion pelt in replacement(which probably is extremely OP with the ability to block anything regardless of rank)
 
Probably you are right... but just feels to OP. You need to take something away from him to balance him out. For example as Saber I except Hercules to have his Nemean Lion pelt in replacement(which probably is extremely OP with the ability to block anything regardless of rank)
Why though? Gil is ridiculously haxx, Karna is haxx, Iskander is haxx, and Achilles is OP. Some Servants are just going to be incredibly unfair while others are completely weaksauce. Fairness was NEVER a concern of the makers of the Grail.
 
Why though? Gil is ridiculously haxx, Karna is haxx, Iskander is haxx, and Achilles is OP. Some Servants are just going to be incredibly unfair while others are completely weaksauce. Fairness was NEVER a concern of the makers of the Grail.
True but even as Berserker I think Hercules could beat Alexander and Achilles. And that is weakest form(probably)
 

...Really? I know that originally there were going to be five or seven routes, but loli Caster as one of them seems doubtful.

I remember this coming up in some of the expanded material translations (one of the posters on Beast's Lair [I think his username is McJon09, or something similar to that] has a thread with a Google Document of all of his translations - it contains all sorts of tidbits of info). The previously-stated information about Caster reverting herself into a loli form to conserve prana was stated in such. It is also off-handedly mentioned again at another point, where they discuss how Caster has a fixation on lolita fashion, and yet despite having the ability, she doesn't seem to want to turn herself into one for the sake of wearing the clothes herself.

It's also mentioned that one of the planned Bad Ends would have happened if Shirou cheated on her with Rider, and getting stabbed in the back with Rule Breaker.

Speaking of routes that sadly never came to fruition, I heard something about a fucking Shinji route on /a/. How would that even work?

Oh man, this is one of the oldest jokes in the fandom. I'm fairly certain it was an easter egg in the game data.

...Something about Optimus Prime..?

My memory is shit.

EDIT: Okay, found it. It was an unused script file in the game data for Fate/Stay Night that was pretty much an obvious gag. Basically, something that can only be unlocked by hacking.

Baka-Nii-chans
The discussions mentioned this too. 'Shinji Route' wasn't a romantic route. Instead, the phrase was used as a term to describe the variation of the plot if you decided to ally with Shinji instead of Rin. The perspective would have allowed for you to see Shinji's better qualities, but they eventually cut it.
 
The discussions mentioned this too. 'Shinji Route' wasn't a romantic route. Instead, the phrase was used as a term to describe the variation of the plot if you decided to ally with Shinji instead of Rin. The perspective would have allowed for you to see Shinji's better qualities, but they eventually cut it.

Shinji has better qualities? :confused:
 
Back
Top