Leknaat and the Runes

[Linnaeus]

Just a rhetorical question to ponder. If Arshtat had the Sun Rune, and Alenia and Sialeeds had the Twilight Rune, would they have seen Leknaat? My theory is that Leknaat only visits the people who are chosen by the runes, because those people cause Fate to alter. What are your theories?

[Rune hunter]

No Leknaat does not always appear to rune bearers. Suikoden 3 proves that. My theory is that she will only visit the one who is destined to gather the 108 stars

[Buff]

[Linnaeus]

Also, the True Runes shown in Suikoden III didn't have any special legends or powers to be mentioned. And if they did, it was already mentioned in the plot through the legend of the Flame Champion. The other True Runes are different, having their own special powers and legends that make them unique and dangerous all in one, while the True Runes of Fire, Water, Lightning, Earth, and Wind were all just really high powered elemental runes.

Buff is probably right about the fact that Jowy was probably visited by Leknaat a few times. I have a feeling that Arshtat was visited by Leknaat a few times as well, or at least given a report from Zerase of what Arshtat did with the Sun Rune.

[Captain Hero]

Would someone please refresh my memory, did Leknaat appear in Suikoden III? And who was the person she appeared to? I can't seem to remember. :P

I'm speaking from memory, and I remember that most of Leknaat's points when showing herself to someone, specifically a Rune bearer, is about gathering people and uniting the stars of destinies. So maybe she's picky when it comes to appearing infront of a rune bearer, she only chooses people who can gather the stars of destiny and use the rune for good. (Maybe Windy shows herself infront of those who wish to use the runes for evil. XD)
_________________

[El Regrs]

[Rainrir]

Leknaat does appear to everyone that will eventually gather the 108 stars of destiny. Her goal is more to do with the Stars of Destiny then the True Runes. Here are the observations of the 5 games.

S1, she appears to Tir. He has a True rune and he does gather 108 people in the end.

S2, she appears to Riou, no true rune but will eventually gather 108 stars . Not sure if she appeared to Jowy during the time where they got the BS and BS (Heh) Runes. Note that BOTH do not have True Runes, they only have the component. Leknaat appears to Riou before attack of Rockaxe.

S3, she doesn't appear. But we all know the reason, Luc sealed her away somehow and she kinda didn't interfere due to her "bond" with Luc.

S4, she appears to Lazlo. He has a True Rune and he does gather 108 people (The only similarity between the two game...other then Ted..I'll say...)

S5, she appears to Faroush. He DOES NOT have a True Rune and he does gather 108 stars.

So I believe that Leknaat's core interest is in the 108 stars of destiny then the True runes themselves.

[Rune hunter]

Occam' razor state that the simpler answer is usually the correct answer. Meaning Leknaat might appear to other rune bearers but being we never really see this its more likely she never met with them.

[Rainrir]

Its not like Occam's Razor is an end-all-be-all principle that explains everything....especially when it comes to literature....

But really, that logic is flawed. Because the fact that we never see it doesn't mean that her NOT seeing other True Rune Users have less assumptions then her seeing other True Rune users.

Occam's Razor does NOT say the simplest answer is most likely the correct one. It says the explaination that makes the LEAST assumptions about the question or phenomena in question will mostly likely to be correct.

We are assuming only at few things when we consider that

In the case we argue she sees True Rune Bearers we assume that
1)She sees them.
2)But We never saw her go see them.
3)We will eventually see her go see them....

In the case we argue she DOESN'T see True Rune Bearers we assume that
1)She doesn't see them.
2)We never saw her go see them
3)We will never see her go see them...

Both cases are very very simple and only has minimal assumptions involved. You can probably find some more assumptions for each case, but I am almost certain that the number of assumptions for both cases is equal. So Occam's Razor is pointless here.

Not that I need to prove anything, Occam's Razor doesn't really help deduce anything about a narrative and sometimes a hinderance to discovering some truths about the real world (especially in areas concerning criminal investgations and human emotions) if stuck too closely to...or applying to cases where it may not apply or a case where the assumptions cannot be properly listed and compared (unlike a MATHEMATICAL ARGUEMENT)