Cross Effects - Sign Up, Discussion Page

[Cherry Lover]

Magicians preserve knowledge through crests. Preserving the knowledge of the family and adding to it is more important than being able to use it. And even then, they still act as additional circuits, and in turn increase the ability of the magus which possess them.

It's not just "knowledge", having the ability to use the spells does matter. A crest gives you the ability to use spells in it without restriction or any need to cast them. You can believe whatever you like, but unless you can provide solid evidence of your opinion I will continue to do what I think is correct.

Well iirc Sakura has it as a general affinity sourcery trait or no.

Also I thought sorcery traits were inherited and passed down through families like Bazzet's god's holder trait that the fraga have (unless I'm misremembering canon).

So I thought it was just a mutated elemental affinity that was born through chance.

Not a clue, honestly.

Also Mike while you're pretty much a sakura expert I think you might be a little wrong about the magic she uses. She was corrupted and influenced by angra manyu and it was a combination of agnra mainyu, matou binding magic with Sakura's imaginary number trait at best creating material. Regardless the things you see her do in HF are pretty warped versions of her magic if they do represent it and the children would have something pretty different even with use of a crest.

I think you're overestimating the amount of effect AM has on her magic. Yes, it does enhance it somewhat, but the base concept is a combination of Sakura's natural imaginary numbers magic and Matou binding magic. The shadow elements of it are definitely from her imaginary numbers, as is the anti-servant affinity.

How are crests made in canon again? I think a mage rips out their own magic circuits and permanently imbues spells into them so that over the generations it would grow slowly. (this is probably some incorrect fanon so please show me the lore books if the mention them).

Yeah, that's the assumption I was working on. Every generation of the family adds a few of their circults to the crest, with the spells they can cast stored in those circuits. Hence why a Crest is so important, because it has every spell ever invented by your family. Even the most powerful magus is at a massive disadvantage if they have only one lifetime's work instead of many.

[Knick]

Its effectiveness at beating servants was due to connection to the grail, although the anti-spirit attribute probably helped if only a bit, not enough to beat servants independently.

Servants cannot deny the will of the grail by their vary nature. That is the whole explanation for Sakura being able to nom Gil.

[Kat]

Though if she tried to Blacken him instead of nomming him immediately, he would burst out of her chest Kool Aid Man style.

[Lycodrake]

Nah Brah, Rin is the one exception.
She a really good magus cause she still focuses on development and mastery of magecraft. Also has massive potential.
She more of a hybrid, she follows the path of a magus but does not have the complete mindset for it. So she kinda a gray area.

I disagree on your wording, but you aren't entirely wrong. Rin goes back and forth on being magus and being a decent, considerate human being.

[Knick]

Ya could have worded it better. My bad.

[Cherry Lover]

Its effectiveness at beating servants was due to connection to the grail, although the anti-spirit attribute probably helped if only a bit, not enough to beat servants independently.

Servants cannot deny the will of the grail by their vary nature. That is the whole explanation for Sakura being able to nom Gil.

Yeah, the anti-spirit thing is one thing that Angra definitely does help quite a bit with.

Nah Brah, Rin is the one exception.
She a really good magus cause she still focuses on development and mastery of magecraft. Also has massive potential.
She more of a hybrid, she follows the path of a magus but does not have the complete mindset for it. So she kinda a gray area.

I disagree on your wording, but you aren't entirely wrong. Rin goes back and forth on being magus and being a decent, considerate human being.

Nah, she doesn't really go "back and forth". Aside from around the MoS decision in HF, I can't think of anything that Rin does that is genuinely bad (and even then she could also be said to be protecting people), and nor can I really think of any occasion where Rin could have saved someone and avoided doing so. Hanging around with Shirou does push her morality levels up a bit, true, but she doesn't exactly push the "true magus" angle very hard.

The thing with Rin is that she tries to be a magus, but is simply too good a person to achieve it. There's not really any "back and forth" there, when there is a conflict her kind nature almost always wins.

[Gray]

I know you don't like this Mike but I personally view MoS as a good move. Sure it causes misery but it places selflessness over selfishness. As seen by all the other bad ends after that one the chances of actually suceeding in saving Sakura were pretty slim and weighing the lives of her shadow nomming on the scale less people were effected negatively. You would put a dog down if it had rabies despite the really slim chance of keeping it alive and not biting down on people until they are free.

Anyways looking forward to the rules tommorow.

[Cherry Lover]

I know you don't like this Mike but I personally view MoS as a good move. Sure it causes misery but it places selflessness over selfishness. As seen by all the other bad ends after that one the chances of actually suceeding in saving Sakura were pretty slim and weighing the lives of her shadow nomming on the scale less people were effected negatively.

Sorry, that is just crap. Sakura is not a fucking statistic, she is a human being, and Shirou has absolutely no right to judge her as worthy of death because of something she might do. Further, he knows bugger all about what the shadow was doing or was capable of doing at the time, so that is no defence. All he has is some vague comment from Kotomine saying she will kill people, which he resolves to prevent.

You would put a dog down if it had rabies despite the really slim chance of keeping it alive and not biting down on people until they are free.

Sure, but you don't put a human down if they have rabies, or any other infectious disease for that matter. Sakura is not a fucking dog, and I think that comparison is very revealing of your attitude to her, and to humans in general.

[Umbra of Chaos]

Not the place. Take it to the PMs or VMs if you want to debate morality. You can even make a new thread. Not this one though.

[Cherry Lover]

Yeah, I know....

[Kat]

Sure, but you don't put a human down if they have rabies,

If they are in too advanced stage of rabies you often have to euthanise them, so that's an awkward analogy.

[Cherry Lover]

Sure, but you don't put a human down if they have rabies,

If they are in too advanced stage of rabies you often have to euthanise them, so that's an awkward analogy.

I can't think of any situation where a human being would be intentionally killed by a doctor to stop them spreading a disease, indeed it is illegal to euthanise humans in most countries even with the patient's consent. The most you can do is give them drugs that relieve their suffering but might also kill them, or remove treatment. And, even then, it is done solely for the benefit of the patient (because keeping them alive just causes them to suffer more), not because of any danger of spreading the infection. The concept of killing (or even refusing to treat) a patient who could still survive because they are potentially contagious to others if they are allowed to live is one that a doctor would refuse to even consider.

[Umbra of Chaos]

Yeah, I know....

Sure, but you don't put a human down if they have rabies,

If they are in too advanced stage of rabies you often have to euthanise them, so that's an awkward analogy.

I can't think of any situation where a human being would be intentionally killed by a doctor to stop them spreading a disease, indeed it is illegal to euthanise humans in most countries even with the patient's consent. The most you can do is give them drugs that relieve their suffering but might also kill them, or remove treatment. And, even then, it is done solely for the benefit of the patient (because keeping them alive just causes them to suffer more), not because of any danger of spreading the infection. The concept of killing (or even refusing to treat) a patient who could still survive because they are potentially contagious to others if they are allowed to live is one that a doctor would refuse to even consider.

?

http://darksidemoon.net/SMF_forum/index.php/topic,404.msg17435.html#msg17435

[Kat]

Mike's, times are changing and euthanasy is introduced even where it is not officially introduced as euthanasy, in form of ceasing persistent treatment.

[Cherry Lover]

Mike's, times are changing and euthanasy is introduced even where it is not officially introduced as euthanasy, in form of ceasing persistent treatment.

Yes, it can be, but it is only ever done in the interests of the patent, not for the protection of others. Similarly, any euthanasia that might be introduced will be purely voluntary, with the full consent of the patient and in their interests. There is no way it will ever become legal for a doctor to kill a patient against their wishes, and especially not when doing so is not in the best interests of the patient.