Kiritsugu… has generic villain motives. “I am going to end all murder and killing, and in order to do that I’m going to murder and kill!”
Joking aside, with three episodes, it’s evident that the second season of Fate/Zero is already improving a lot. The first season had a lot of build-up, and now that that is over we can finally get down to business, and I love how well the creators made use of this. Kiritsugu’s plans were very well thought up and executed, in addition to being completely ruthless. Although I do wonder how he knew where Kayneth and his fiance were. Does that have to do with these familiars that were mentioned in one of the early episodes of the first season?
I also loved that after all of the focus on Chivalry from Saber’s perspective, this episode yet again comes with the complete opposite of this in order to criticize it. Neither side is right: Chivalry basically means killing with honour, but Kiritsugu’s methods also only give birth to more conflicts. I love how this episode managed to balance that out.
Also, Kotomine Kirei. If I didn’t find out that this guy is the main villain of Fate/Stay Night, I really would not have guessed that. This episode again showed him as this conflicted soul, not sure of what he wants to do. Seeing him trying to figure this out is also quite interesting.
Rating: **+ (Excellent+)
For me, this episode is easily the best episode among Fate/Zero so far. The moral debate between Saber and kiritsugu are extremely well done. I love the clashed between two different ideology and philosophy .
“Although I do wonder how he knew where Kayneth and his fiance were”
As far as I know, it was mentioned in the novel that Maiya would interrogate Sola for information. Anyway, clever plan, Kiritsugu. Using Saber as a decoy to finish off both Servant and Master was cruel, but clever.
I agree with you. Neither Kiritsugu nor Saber is right. A fanatic and a complete anti-hero or an idealistic fool. Both of them are way too extreme in their own way.
I hesitate to call Saber a fool, especially after this display. It felt like she understood and sympathized with Kiritsugi to the point where it pained Kiritsugi to even acknowledge it. Otherwise, I doubt if Saber would have put her sword aside after what Kiritsugi pulled.
About Saber’s excessive difference towards Lancer though, I have to wonder if she may have fallen under the spell of Lancer’s mark, to a certain extent. I could buy Saber giving Lancer a handicap during their duel but refusing to have her hand healed even though her Noble Phantasm was the only thing they had that could stop a giant flesh-eating tentacle monster felt a little bit absurd.
She is a fool because even though she gets a mirror of herself right in her face that she still can’t see that her own way is also wrong, even after Rider bluntly telling her the truth. This is exactly the same thing that happened when she met Archer in the 5th war.
Her anger and killing intent are immediately gone the moment she realizes that Kiritsugu resembles her a lot and just has gone astray from his idealistic path, due to reality. This isn’t what I meant when I called her a fool. I am quite aware that she can understand and sympathizes with Kiritsugu perfectly. Team NTR’s death had the complete opposite effect one would expect regarding Saber’s relationship with Kiritsugu. Instead of worsen it, it improved.
Um…ok, now you’ve lost me.
She is a fool because even though she gets a mirror of herself right in her face that she still can’t see that her own way is also wrong, even after Rider bluntly telling her the truth.
What way of hers are you referring to exactly which you say is wrong, especially comparing herself to Kiritsugi? I get that she’s overdoing it. Wishing she wasn’t King just cos her rule wasn’t perfect. She made her mark and I don’t think it was all that bad. I don’t get how Kiritsugi is her mirror. What, she’s going to endure severe tragedy because of the path she took and turn into the opposite of what she set out to be?
Rider pitied Saber’s real-life role of a King placed (in his mind) unfairly upon a little girl, who wound up sacrificing herself for ideals he felt were thrust upon her by her people. To him, Saber should have told her people to shove it and either live her own life. Never mind that there’s probably no one else who could do it as well as her. Fate of people and country be damned. I can sympathize with Rider pitying a girl like Saber having to carry on the heavy burden of leadership over a nation and I despise Archer for looking forward to seeing her fail. Me, I’d be cheering her on and hoping and praying that she makes it. Now I get that Saber looks like a little girl but from what I understand, she ruled for as long as the real Arthur did and her magic scabbard kept her young. I get that she sacrificed a lot but it was what she wanted and what she chose for herself. And still holds on to in spite of all the crap she’s gone through. And it takes a lot of crap to get such a keen understand of Kiritsugi’s character so quickly. And I can’t say her goals were bad. What would things be like without things like honor and chivalry or a code of conduct? Or a common sense of right and wrong? How do we live with one another without a certain measure of trust that we won’t cross certain lines that will hurt each other unnecessarily?
Now you might want to say unrealistic but if people like the Wright brothers thought that way, we’d still be walking, riding, sailing to get around the world and without people like Martin Luther King, we’d all be a lot more racist, probably be involved in a lot more conflicts and people like Obama or Oprah wouldn’t have made it as far as they have.
I meant “Archer in the fifth war” aka FSN-Archer, Rin’s Archer. The one who never abandoned his ideal and was betrayed, in the end sacrificing his own life to become a Counter Guardian, yet was betrayed again. If I’m talking about Gilgamesh, I’ll call him Gil.
To understand the connection with Kiritsugu, I suggest you wait until episode 18 and see Kiritsugu’s flashback. Don’t forget, it was his childhood dream that made Shirou wanting to become a hero, an ally of justice(“seigi no mikata”). Shirou basically borrowed Kiritsugu’s ideals. Note, that this is what Saber assumes. Kiritsugu wanted to be an ally of justice in his past, that’s why she is pitying him.
Saber never abandoned her ideals and in the end was betrayed by the very same people she wanted to protect, just like Archer. Then before she was dying she made a contract with the world, so if she can win the Holy Grail and change her past, she will serve the world as a Counter Guardian after her death. In FSN she meets Archer and like Shirou, she doesn’t like him very much until she realizes who he is, what he has done and that this is exactly the path she wanted to go. The difference is the fact that Archer has already become a Counter Guardian and he knows that his ideal betrayed him again.
Rider thinks that Saber is too idealistic and that it will only lead to pain. She keeps regretting what she has done and changing the past doesn’t really make things better. That’s why he wants to stop her.
Saber never abandoned her ideals and in the end was betrayed by the very same people she wanted to protect
I’m not sure if it affected her the same way Emiya was affected by his experiences. In Saber’s case, while there were those against her, there were more who were for her. And I’d like to think she’s made of sterner stuff.
The difference is the fact that Archer has already become a Counter Guardian and he knows that his ideal betrayed him again.
And I took that as Archer losing faith in his own cause over all the darkness he experienced. But he regained at least some of his faith fighting Shirou in UBW. As for Saber, I don’t see her faith ever wavering, in spite of all the betrayals she experiences. Even after she gets summoned by another Emiya, she holds no grudge against him. It’ll take a dip in a vat of pure evil to screw her up. Well, I should wait for the ending to find out the juicy details.
Warning, FSN spoilers for first-time-Fate-people.
I’m not sure if it affected her the same way Emiya was affected by his experiences. In Saber’s case, while there were those against her, there were more who were for her. And I’d like to think she’s made of sterner stuff.
It actually hurt her a lot. Just like Kiritsugu she is hiding her emotions. And just like Kiritsugu she killed her emotions – while ruling as king for her ideal was actually the cause of all the betrayal.
As for Saber, I don’t see her faith ever wavering, in spite of all the betrayals she experiences.
That’s because she
1. doesn’t know what it means to be a CG and
2. she firmly believes in the Holy Grail, just like Kiritsugu in FZ. Archer can’t do this.
Btw, you should just wait and see what happens. It’s because of FZ that she is even more determined to win the Grail.
Will do. Thanks for your insights.
I don’t have much to say. This episode was incredible in many ways. No drop in quality at all. If anything, I was just surprised at the sudden quick pace. Well, I was expecting Diarmund to have a flashback scene though. And it’s stuff like this that made me expect Kiritsugi to just drop the whole hotel without evacuating it so as to not risk Kayneth evacuating too.
And Diarmund’s curse. Is that it? Is this what ********* the *****? I totally can’t blame him. I wonder if he thought Saber was in on it.
Although I do wonder how he knew where Kayneth and his fiance were.
I think it’s just a good old fashioned stakeout and sheer carelessness on Sola’s part for letting herself get caught alone in the open. Everyone had their guards down after taking out Caster. I think Kayneth was expecting everyone to be recharging/lining up for their free Command Spells and to be in confusion over the priest. And it would make sense for Kiritsugi to be shadowing Kayneth. They were the weakest team left in many ways.
No, that’s not what ********* the *****. The reason for the********** is found only in Fate/Hollow Ataraxia, and IMO, it’s a really good one.
Love to know what it is. Read FHA raw a long time ago and before I read FSN so my knowledge is pretty half-baked but I’m still not sure why ******* was in the ***** in the first place. I got the impression that something wrong happened in a previous war. Is this it? Or perhaps part of it? Diarmund looked waaaaaay unnatural in his last moments.
A long long time ago, in a village far away, the people decided that a certain man (chosen at random) was the source of all evil in the world. So they punished that man for every bad thing that happened. They tortured him daily and didn’t allow him to die. The man went insane and finally died of old age. His death brought peace to the world, if only for a brief moment, because they believed the source of all evil was destroyed. Since his death did in fact bring peace to the world, the Holy Grail chose him as a Heroic Spirit, and brought his soul inside it. However the man hated the world and all humans, and his darkness corrupted the Grail in a away that could never be fixed. The corrupted Grail would interpret any and all wishes as a wish of destruction, and it would also now summon “evil” spirits, like Medusa, Medea and Gil de Rois. There is absolutely no way to repair the Grail.
This is actually HEAVY SPOILERS , dude…
I guess it’s better if someone could delete this comment here because you kill the fun for those who have not played Hollow-Ataraxia or Heaven’s Feel/read the Character Materials.
Thanks for the post though. I’m one of the people that will never read the original story, and really appreciate details like this.
I don’t want to be spoiled for F/Z, but anything from the canon that F/Z assumes you already know ought to be fair game, right?
Thanks for your insights. I must apologise to any reader who was unnecessarily spoiled but I am grateful for this clarification. A story this complicated is made even harder to grasp in a foreign language and I’m glad to meet any other fellow fan with useful insights. And yes, as Civlov, recommends, STOP READING if you don’t want to be SPOILED SILLY.
I actually got the first part of the story about the background of this entity. It’s only up to this part here that I don’t quite get.
The corrupted Grail would interpret any and all wishes as a wish of destruction, and it would also now summon “evil” spirits, like Medusa, Medea and Gil de Rois.
Hm…I may be wrong but there’s something missing to this somehow. I seem to remember somewhere that there was an error in this ritual to summon the Grail, which caused the corruption. I mean the entity you’re referring to above has always existed in the Nasuverse, but something happened during one of the previous Grail Wars caused it to take over the Grail somehow. And it’s the events in FHA that resolved the situation. I suspect it’s something in F/Z although I don’t know of Diarmuid’s curse was the catalyst. And then there’s a huge question mark in FHA about whether ****** wasn’t just some random orphan Kiritsugi picked up but was actually an(the?) incarnation of ***** ****** all along, spawned at the end of F/Z. I don’t think FHA ever explained why ******* picked ****** as his everyday incarnation. Pure coincidence? I’ve never heard of a natural redhead japanese.
Well, like I said, this info is from the sequel to Fate/Stay Night, you if you only watched the anime, there’s no way you would know this.
Also, if someone doesn’t want to be spoiled, why READ IT? A man asks a question, another post a reply that is most likely, the answer. Another guy reads the answer and then complains about being spoiled. Tip: THEN STOP READING IT!
Oh, you didn’t spoil me, but you didn’t even give a warning for other people.
There are occasions where others get unintentionally spoiled and just saying stuff like “well, you read it, it’s your own fault” sounds a bit lame.
Well, I WAS answering to a post containing “I’d love to know what it was” and “Is this it?”. It’s logical to at least assume that an answer would be given.
That is true, meow asked for it.
But just giving a fair warning before giving the answer is imo better, since we can’t use spoiler tags here(or can we?). Never mind, this was just a minor thing that bugged me.
Being Lancer is Suffering
that is all
Final Dead Lancer?
Death by beach volleyball.
Ouch.
Don’t play the games, or read the novels and gave up quarter way through the first franchise. But very confident to say Fate stay/night has got nothing next to Zero.
Wow, you almost know nothing about FSN, yet you make such a statement. The VN is at the least on par with FZ.
Read the VN and I liked F/Z a lot better (it’s like FSN with removed flaws) the VN really had it’s lengths and Shirou was at times an incredibly annoying protagonist. The HF route is pretty good though.
Then it’s okay, if you say so. I personally also liked HF the most because Shirou acts in a very realistic way and we get to know Kirei and Ilya better in that route. I’m just irritated when people are comparing things without having the knowledge to back their statement up.
Well, I like FZ more too, due to Shirou, Sakura, Rin did not take big part at all, and Saber seemed more like a king than that-girl-I-need-to-conquered.
Go easy on mulligan. XD Pretty darn sure he was just referring to the FSN anime.
Don’t play the games, or read the novels… […]But very confident to say Fate stay/night has got nothing next to Zero.
Basically, he doesn’t know FSN. Fine, maybe I was a bit too harsh.
With respect, you have to be kidding. The original FSN is badly written, with ludicrous amounts of exposition, poor descriptive writing, and overblown metaphors. The Heaven’s Feel route, whilst the most sophisticated of the three, receives too much praise for simply featuring the only version of Shirou who is even halfway passable as a human character. Frankly, his Fate and Unlimited Blade Works incarnations are laughably two dimensional.
Don’t get me wrong, the Visual Novel was enjoyable, but its entertainment value cannot really conceal the fact that it is a horrible piece of writing. Its value comes from its sophisticated plotting and the novelty and scope of its concept (although, even here, the original cast is drawn from a lamentably shallow pool).
Fate/ Zero is a much better work. It lacks Nasu’s more egregious flaws as a writer, better establishes its cast of Servants as characters (let’s face it – the original Rider, Lancer, Berserker, and Assassin(s) were as shallow as characters come, despite their likeability), and just generally establishes much more interesting Servant-Master dynamics. Compare the FZ Kirei-Gilgamesh dynamic to that seen in Fate/Stay Night, Iskander-Waver to Medusa-Sakura, Diarmuid-Sola/Kayneth to Cuchulainn-Kirei, etc. In the original VN, the bond between servant and Master, with the notable exception of Team Caster, was either not built up or presented as existing without background or rationale. Fate/ Zero actually takes the time to establish its characters -as- characters, and give the servants bonds with their masters that extend beyond the forced contract. The consequence is an infinitely superior piece of writing.
I’ll just say FZ is different, not necessarily better. While in FSN mostly non-experienced normal civilians or magi were involved(and almost all of them were not adults), the 4th war was hailed as one of the greatest wars there have ever been partially because of the summoned Servants, because almost every Master was well prepared for the war(or not) and strategy played a much more important role.
Also, most of the time we only get to see what’s happening from Shirou’s point of view in FSN. I do however see FSN as incomplete – as you’ve said, the Master-Servant interaction is lacking(and I’ll just ignore Nasu’s style for now), though I think Hollow Ataraxia is kind of a nice fanservice compensation for this.
I have my own reasons why I like HF so much, but if I compare FSN with FZ, then I’ll consider all three routes as a whole and seeing Shirou’s “development” from child(fate) to teenager(UBW) to adult(HF)is what I think makes FSN on par with FZ. Though FSN is way longer than FZ, so FZ might be seen overall as the better work… I personally think FSN as a whole is as good as FZ, but that’s really just my opinion, so I can understand if people who have read both disagree.
>> The Heaven’s Feel route, whilst the most sophisticated of the three, receives too much praise for simply featuring the only version of Shirou who is even halfway passable as a human character. Frankly, his Fate and Unlimited Blade Works incarnations are laughably two dimensional.
However, you should account for the fact that he is mentally ill, which partially justifies his character.
A great Irishman is gone. Poor Diamuid. Never got a break even after the end of his life.
Go ndéana Dia trócaire ar a anam
We shall miss you.
I wonder if we’ll see him again in some incarnation or another, along with a possible rematch between Kayneth and Kiritsugi. There’s something about that self-geas that bugs me, especially the part about the crest binding him even after death. Why add such a nasty clause? Seems like overkill.
I just think Clare is a child. She thinks there is honor and beauty in war… But war, as Kitsurugi said, is just HELL. There’s nothing beautiful in war. And, if you’re in a war, you have to win, no matter what. Theres no honor in war.
I beg to differ.
War nowadays is hell. That’s because guns have taken away any need of skill. Any man who can hold a gun can fight in a war. War in the old days needed skill. And those with skill became legends. War is a absolute need for mankind. True when you get down to it it’s just killing but it is better to kill a man with honour rather than stab a man in the back. So I actually like the chivalry that Saber and Lancer speak off. Even if it’s naive.
World peace? Those who wish for if have no idea what it means. If there is no war then the only thing left for us is stagnation and eventual death. Plus you can’t deny the good things that came out of war. For example, Anime.
I just can’t seem to find the right words to say it better.
You are partially right, but the wording in my opinion sounds kinda weird. Conflict is needed, not war. The last century’s wars were completely different compared to the Middle Ages or whatever.
war from back in the days isn’t any better than today, just because the pure body count is lower due to less participants doesn’t make it better. If anything, those who suffered through those early wars had it much worse, especially when it’s piled upon their already miserable lives.
Also, saying any man who can hold a gun can fight a war is just as pointless as saying any man who can hold a sword/spear can fight a war. While technically true, they are both likely to be worth little more than cannon fodders, of which there are just as much cannon fodder today as those in the early ages, as you can hardly claim that the soldiers or peasants drafted into the armies were professionals. I hate to say this, but only those who’s never actually had actually fight with a firearm will make the claim that it doesn’t take skills to use.
Humanity is most innovative when driven by pressing needs, and nothing provides those needs more directly than war. Still, that hardly means that humanity cannot innovate without war, which you seem to say here.
You have to be kidding me. If you seriously think that ‘olden day’ war was somehow less horrible than our modern manifestations, you haven’t taken the time to read Herodotus, Thucydides, etc. The apparent need for ‘greater skill’ didn’t stop armies of untrained peasants being drafted into battle, with predictable results, and being bitten, lacerated, or gouged to death is hardly any more pleasant than being shot. Poorer sanitation meant that armies lost more men to disease than they ever did in battle.
Your second point is as ludicrous as your first. Some of the greatest periods of sustained human innovation and advancement have come during times of peace, not war. The Renaissance, the Industrial Revolution, the scientific revolution – all peace-time developments. Further, some of the most notable inventions of the last few centuries have had absolutely no relation to any kind of military activity – the invention of flight, the light bulb, penicillin, etc.
It is important to demystify the myth that war back in the Middle Ages or Ancient Ages was somehow “better.” It wasn’t, as was already stated. And that point should be well-remembered by those who seek to ascribe an idea of “honor” to past brutal killing.
However, I think that is missing a larger and more important point. The amount of destruction that occurred in the 20th century and the number of lives lost is greater (in numbers) than any in human history. The only event that can even come close to the savagery and death of WWII is the small pox plagues that ravaged Native American nations and empires between the 1500s and the 1600s. In a strong numerical sense and in many ethical considerations(the scourge of genocide being one), modern human civilization has been SIGNIFICANTLY more destructive than past ones. We should also not ignore this.
Lastly, while the Industrial Revolution occurred primarily during a peacetime, the Enlightenment and the scientific revolution certainly did not.
I disagree strongly on this point. First of all, you misunderstand Saber somewhat. Before all, she thinks honor is necessary in war, and Kiritsugu’s ruthless methods will only escalate conflicts. It’s less a matter of naivety and more a matter of policies. Let us imagine for a moment “war” fought according to Kiritsugu’s vision, but with both sides following that vision. I don’t know what your image is, but I see nuclear warheads flying about, decimating large industrial centers, biological weapons being slipped into the enemy’s water supply, chemical weapons being sprayed over battlefields, gay bombs being dropped on enemy soldiers, cats and dogs living together… mass hysteria! (those last few are a joke, obviously).
Now, if you still say that wars fought “with honor”, meaning, “according to international policies and treaties” is the same as the picture above… well, you are dead wrong but that much should be obvious.
Kiritsugu’s mindset is useful for small scale, personal conflicts. A crime lord who ruthlessly eliminates all opposition can in some cases even gain support among the general populace or even authorities, if that is the price of keeping relative order in the region (though in such a case, we would have a development of “policy” once again). When it’s world powers going at each other’s throats, this just won’t work, though.
Bottom line, I am much more inclined to agree with Saber’s words rather than Kiritsugu’s.
Fantastic! I can’t wait. I read the print that said Emiya’s dirty handed, but I don’t know what to call what he just did. Cruel is an understatement. Screw all that talk about saving the world, this gives wickedness a whole new meaning. Writers could take a hint on the kind of villains people like.
Now I have to wait a week. Bbrrrrrr…
Chivalry and Murder are indeed both insane ideologies. I would argue however that there is a version of chivalry based on self- defense and defense of the weak, whereas Kiritsugu’s motive – the ‘Krelian’ ideal – is simply induced by a psychosis…
If you kill someone to achieve a goal. You are EVIL. End of story. No one has the right to negate other lives.
I don´t care what history says.
Or facts, or common sense.
Then you are as blind as the one who kills for his own gain, since you can only care for what you believe.
Both good and evil are personal illusions created to accomodate our own needs. If you fear or don’t like something it’s evil, if you like it or it makes you feel happy then it’s good, but unless every single conscience in the whole universe agrees with you then it’s not essencialy so, because it’s not absolute. And because beliefs aren’t absolute war happens, since humans will always try to make others think like them.
The same reasoning works for war; each person will see it in his own way, most people without giving a thought will believe it’s bad, because the norm says so; I myself can understand both reasonings, even if I like Saber’s best. I can’t see a war that is fought to protect what you believe or to give a better life to the ones you love and your country as something evil, even if it’s one just to prove that you’re stronger, because strenght only comes from hard work. Off course there will be losers, the world, the resources and the lives are not infinite so it’s obvious that for one to win another one will have to lose, but if you think logically the fault for losing is entirely of the losers, if they were weak, well it’s their own fault for never doing anything to became strong.
As of honor it’s such a powerfull and distant concept that every single person who believes in it will see it in a way, for me honor is to stay true to yourself, even if you have to betray the world and his ways you will not betray the things that you believe. So yeah, living, dying and killing for what you believe is a pretty concept, at least for me.
I think this is kind of a scary philosophy. First you argue that there is no good or evil since it’s just what we like or dislike. Then you argue that killing/living/dying for what we believe is good and evil (even though you hold that these don’t exist) is a great concept?!?
This idea that there cannot be an absolute good or an absolute evil because humanity (or sorry every sentient being!) simply cannot agree on it is a ridiculous and impossible standard to hold against someone. It, furthermore, negates humanity. If one defines free will as necessary for the human condition and the freedom to think as one chooses as prerequisite for a human experience, then an absolute good or evil will never be possible under your standard, because if all humanity must agree to a moral precept then, realistically, humans would not have free will to choose an opposite opinion on this certain moral question.
You, thus, attempted to negate his argument that murder is wrong by creating a standard that he could not possibly meet without denying the existence of a real human condition!
And this doesn’t even get into the serious ethical considerations of such a philosophy (which seems like a distilled and simple version of Nietzschean morality).
There is a thoughtful and ethical utilitarian response you can make to Saigo’s argument, but this is not it.
Let’s go through parts, first of all Saigo’s answer starts and ends in the first paragraph, but it’s my fault for not closing it off literally; and by the way I’m not denying his point I’m just saying it’s exactly the same has the one he is reffuting, but of course he has all the right to have it as I have all the right to disagree with it. But let me answer again: You can’t deny a point of view if yours is the same just opposite unless you care to go through the reasons from which the other point of view came to be, conflict it with your reasons and still get the same conclusion. Else you’re just trying to lazily force your point not only on others, but also on yourself.
It’s not that good and evil doesn’t exist (it’s a system we created, so yeah it exists) it’s just that there isn’t even one thing that is absolutely good or evil; good and evil is only a system by which we classify external things and events. So if we accept that something, doesn’t matter what, is essentially evil or good, then we are denying that part of humanity that doesn’t agree, things should be seen for what they are not for the stamps that the norm put on it.
What I’m saying with all the words is that seeing the world with the good and evil glasses is being naive and egoistical since you will be trying to force your individual view on others without ever trying to see things for what they simple and really are.
As for the “loss being losers fault” which is where I believe you bought Nietzsche from, you’re right in the fact that it’s a simpler and distilled version, because Nietzsche isn’t where I’m coming from, karma is. You reap what you sow! You have exactly what you deserve! Blaming someone else for your defeats is just being a coward.
As for honor, that’s how I see it, those are my personal and individual beliefs. Now it doesn’t mean that I’m denying people who think differently or that I don’t understand why people see it differently, it’s just that I as a individual prefer it this way.
Well I know my English isn’t great, but I hope you can get where I’m coming from. And one last thing by saying that there isn’t an absolute good or evil (unless it really is absolute) I’m not denying humanity I’m attesting to its individuality and accepting the value of every single point of view, whether I agree with it or not.
Unless you have read the last route, Heaven’s Feel (where Shirou and Kirei become allies against Zouken during most of the route), you wouldn’t be aware of Kotomine’s intense struggle and his tragic circumstances.
There’s a bunch of stuff cut down here, for instance, how Kotomine is thinking about talking to his father sincerely for the first time to lead him through his own juggling confusion. He always tried to keep him in the dark about his soul searching so he would be happy and proud of his son.
What I mean that even if he’s one of the main antagonists, the protagonist, in the last route, before their battle realizes he likes the guy. That is completely mutual.