Talk:Roy Mustang

Character Info
If I'm not mistaken, there's no official record as to the date of Roy's birth date, except from the year stated in Perfect Guidebook 2, which is also wrong: it's 1885 instead of 1886. So there's no way of telling his birthday is on Sept. 25th. --Turdaewen 20:50, September 25, 2009 (UTC)

Since when did Roy kill Winry's parents? I thought it was Scar killing her parents? Waterdrop95 01:19, October 9, 2009 (UTC)

He killed her parents in the first anime. --Turdaewen 01:29, October 9, 2009 (UTC)

Oh.Waterdrop95 01:35, October 9, 2009 (UTC)

I question the trivia about implications, much less heavy ones, of a romantic relationship with Hawkeye. They're frequently seen together, yes, but she works under him specifically until she is transferred to the Fuhrer. In fact, while both are seen a few times in their private life, they are NEVER seen together outside of performing a professional task or a task directly related to the grand plan. The closest they've come to ever being seen together on a remotely non-professional/coup-based occasion has been Roy having lunch with her. This is after using his expressedly adept people skills to asses in the prior chapter that all was not well by her voice. The fact that she starts up a conversation at all tips him off that she's giving a code. On top of that, they are not on a first name basis in their private life. Compare this to the fact that he calls Hughes and Havoc by name both on duty and off. Roy and Riza may have a special connection as detailed by the plot summary, but I think the romantic implication trvia should be removed, all things considered. 24.32.255.130 15:39, January 2, 2010 (UTC)Zel

Zel, looking at other Arakawa works, such as Souten no Komori and Juushin Enbu, and the way she usually portrays cannon parings (being there a actual relationship, or simply a romantic inclination), you get to realize some deep similarities with the relationship between Roy and Riza. Since she's not an author to put her parings blantly in her mangas, it doesn´t mean she does not intend into putting them as cannon. She usually alludes to it through particular lines and situations, not only on FMA but all her works. And all of that makes a sort of consensus, both in and out of Japan of them being a cannon, though not 'evident', couple. So, not having showed them in a context that in other animes are stated as being cannon doesn't make them 'not-cannon', since they fit Arakawa's description of cannon couples. Meaning: there's no need to actually SHOW them kissing or talking to eachother intimatelly to state that. I agree it may come off confusing by only reading (or watching) FMA, but, when you get to know Arakawa's work more closely, it's very clear. My suggestion it to change 'relationship' to 'feelings', since what's not clear through original work is not if they're in love with eachother, but if they do have a real relationship with eachother. --Turdaewen 14:25, January 3, 2010 (UTC)

Arakawa has and does make her pairings rather blatant; rather, the "relationships" that are "subtle" simply aren't the type of relationship people suppose them to be. Saying that it's the author's style is only begging the question for this pair and for every non-canon pair in her collection of works. Furthermore, the implication in the article that Arakawa said only their rank is either a mistranslation or another skewing of the given information in an attempt to make the pair canon when it is not. Arakawa stated that if they were to get married, military regulations would make it impossible; that is not the same as saying that rank is an in character reason for not writing it. It means their relationship is one of a subordinate and superior officer, and Arakawa further went on to emphasize that as the nature of Roy's relationships with everyone in his arc. This article has a lot of RoyAi pairing bias with this and the general wording, such as stating she is by far his most important relationship, when Hughes was his driving force for much of the manga and when his general kindness and concern for everybody was a point drilled in time and time again. It's not that she isn't an important character in relation to him, but there is no romance implied between them in canon and suppositions on it are best left to fan sites rather than an information wiki. --Zel

Well, if that's how you see it, than there won't be anything that anyone might say to convice you, since you've made up your mind into thinking like that. We won't get a 'straight answer' from Arakawa about it, cause is not her style (I've followed her for over 8 years, now, so I'm quite familiar with her ways) to be straight forward, so, if we assume a "Saint Thomas" position, we might as well never get an answer (and Royai being cannon or not will be the least of our problems, since Arakawa's style being as subtle, half the "facts" of the series are "assumed"). Arakawa is a mangaka who came from a Oneshot tradition and that influence her work very profundly, we cannot overlook that. Just the same as you think that this article is biased towards making Royai more important, what you said seems to me a lot more of a personal consideration of not liking the way the fans consider a certain fact and, therefore, think other aspects are more important, or dismisses anything that might not fit your already stablished view. Yours is subtle way of thinking as any other, and just as pointless as trying to put Arakawa's characters in a two dimensional aspect of "This character acts like this 'solely' or 'mainly' because of THIS fact, or THIS person". But what I can say is that: you may even think different, the general understanding of Arakawa's statement is that "Royai is cannon" (not only internationally, but also inside Japan itself), whether you may agree with it or not. For me it's rather pointless to try and understand Arakawa's way of thinking and intentions if you not take her as a whole into consideration and not FMA isoladed. As for any mistranslation: there aren't! I've translated that myself, I have the original artwork right here, so I know the implications of the words she used and, believe me, if she meant it like you have mentioned, she would have stated it differently. She, literally, said "They cannot get married because of military regulations." In a sense that the reason for it is not sentiments or anything, but the military regulations. If they weren't considered a pairing for her, she would have putted something of a "They have no intentions to do so" or "this is not the sort of relatioship they have".

I understand that many people might disregard the relationship between Roy and Hughes as fundamental to the series, but that's not my case. But I won't do the opposite, either, and decide for myself that Royai is not also fundamental to the series. And, just the same as you have stated yourself: unless Arakawa states that "Hughes was more important to Roy than Riza", there's no way to prove it whatsoever.Turdaewen 14:31, April 28, 2011 (UTC)

The pair being displayed with flirtatious scenes, given Roy's canon penchant for flirting even outside of the Madam Christmas gang, and consistent expression (in series, in Arakawa written omake materials, guide books, etc.) of womanizing tendancies might be something to work with. I'm not necessarily seeking for the article to put a "downplaying" interpretation onto it as to stop overstating it. Looking at the source material myself, it literally says: "After syndication ended, I got a lot of fan letters asking things along the lines of 'the Colonel and the Lieutenant aren't getting married?' If they were to get married, military regulations would make it impossible." No portion of that suggests "personal feelings" being relegated, and the entire reason it was addressed was expressednly the popular fan interpretation of them as a couple, not any intended or written personal feelings. "They can't get married because of military regulations" is certainly one way to summarize it, but it's a particularly slanted summarization that suggests the desired, popular position that is not supported by the given text (unless you want it to be; if you want it to be, as shown, it can also be taken the completely opposite direction). Nor does it suggest that anything is being relegated; that's an unsupported excuse for a complete lack of a any such scenes, against a plethora of scenes ot them as nothing more than a superior and subordinate (as deep and compelling a relationship as that may be in itself; the authoress has explicitly commented on the nature of THIS kind of relationship). "He enjoys teasing her at any given opportunity, especially at the times she shows her affections openly. He also has a tendency of acting on impulse whenever Riza is in danger." is another problem area. He enjoys teasing everybody he is on remotely good terms with openly, including Ed, Hughes, Havoc, Olivier, and even enemies. Furthermore, he acts on impulse whenever anybody is in danger; the Fuhrer used not only Hawkeye, but all of his subordinates' relationships against him. Lines such as "explicit signs of crossing into traditional amatory during the series, there has been many scenes where such a romantic nature is implied." are vague and unfounded.

Suggested revisions are as follows:

Easily the most significant of Roy's personal relationships, his connection with Lt. Hawkeye goes deeper and further back than any other. -- Either remove, or "His earliest known relationship in the series is that with Lt. Hawkeye, with whom he shares a deeply expressed bond."

It may be worth mentioning that manga canon suggests that they were not very close during his tutalage (enough that Hawkeye, however ironically, supposed he may have forgotten her, on top of mildly unfamiliar speaking terms, expressing his clear military intent that had been decided long ago to her as new information at the funeral, etc.). But, based on her placing trust in him at that time, their relationship developed into one of intense personal trust rather than naive, simplistic trust.

"Roy has stated many times her to be" - It's not 'many times', but while 'many' is subjective, it reads awkwardly and should probably just be changed to 'Roy has acknowledged her to be...' but this is more of a style nit-pick than anything.

"He enjoys teasing her at any given opportunity, especially at the times she shows her affections openly. He also has a tendency of acting on impulse whenever Riza is in danger." and "The nature of their relationship is a topic even among other characters of the series and King Bradley has used their connection twice as a weapon to control the Flame Alchemist. "-- Should be revised to be al inclusive and probably moved to the personality section, given these traits are evenly reflected in everybody Roy interacts with (though, despite the sheer number of scenes shared with Hawkeye, he teases her less than others, showing fewer personalized interactions than with others).

"Though their relationship has not shown any explicit signs of crossing into traditional amatory during the series, there has been many scenes where such a romantic nature is implied." -- Cut. Explained above.

"only more clarifyed by a commentary from the author, in 2011, that somewhat confirms them as "a item", though not revealing their actual relationship status." - "commented on by the author in 2011, in response to popularity of the pair as romantically inclined amongst fans, that considers but dismises their marraige potential based on their military status." Or really anything that doesn't suggest the statement says something it doesn't.

"The nature of their relationship is a topic even among other characters of the series and King Bradley has used their connection twice as a weapon to control the Flame Alchemist." --- His connection to all of his subordinates has been used, yet is not mentioned. The Homunculi spend far more time and do much more elaborate work manipulating him based on his dedication to Hughes than they do Hawkeye; this is not necessarily to suggest that he is more important to her, but shows the consistent bias in the article seeking to support a coupling or uniquely special relationship rather than convey canon status, much less the character's personality.

(Not pairing-bias related but this just seems completely left field in the Madame Christmas section: "From the gruff, almost casual way Madame Christmas treats Roy in the few conversations depicted in the show, it is clear that Roy developed his reticence to express affection from her." -- I'd call it casual, but not gruff, and Roy's not reticient in expressing his affection with anyone, unless you count his teasing as particularly distancing. )

Hawkeye's personality shows the same coupling biases, and are conveniently mostly worded the same way as the major complaints within. Similar revisions suggested.

I can't force anyone to make the appropriate changes, and if doing it myself is only going to be considered defacing and reverted, there's no reason to bother. I will be disappointed if expressing popular opinion as fact is more important than expressing the canon nature of the relationship. --Zel

That's the thing, isn't it? When does the "cannon" ends and interpretation begins? Even the concept of "cannon" is subjective, since some people only aknowledge as cannon something that is evidently put by an author while others consider the interpretations of the author's mind to be just as cannon... and, yes, general acceptance or understanding by the public of something being 'cannon' can also be considered 'cannoness'. (and, seriously, practically the only fans of FMA who don't consider Royai to be cannon are the ones that hate the pairing, so that doesn't contribute much to their cause, does it?)

And I don't really think we should go that much rigid on contents of this wikia, given the personality of the author of Fullmetal and also given the piece in and for itself.

So, once again: if we were to state only 'declared' things as facts, biased articles towards Royai would be the LEAST of our problems.

We have to aknowledge that FMA, as any other series by Arakawa has a lot more than meets the eye and we'll never fully understand the series, its contents and meanings if we stick to what you're calling "facts": this is not the type of series like "Naruto", where the characters explain their whole mind in words. And interpretations may come across to you as "not being cannon, cause you can't prove it", but that's the question: the definition of cannon (or even facts) itself is subjective.

But, then again, I don't think you're actually just "attaining only to the facts" yourself, since everything you've putted up so far as being "facts" are as "interpretative" as any other. So, it's your interpretation of facts against other people's. But to explain why I tend to defend what is already on the article: it's not about being popular, but what is consensus in terms of interpretations.

So, what's the difference between your interpretation and the one in this article? The fact that everything that is stated in this article is according to endless discussions, not only of people supporting Royai, but all kinds of fans over years (even fans who are not into the pairing), not only on this wikia, but in many fan foruns. And, for me, interpretations taken by several people under consensus (or close to it), and through exaustive discussions takes precedence over a "point of view", as valid or logical as it may be.Turdaewen 06:20, May 3, 2011 (UTC)

The reason to seek an objective viewpoint in the article should go without saying: the common interpretation, if remotely valid, should be able to be gleamed from an unslanted statement of affairs. This is the same reason that it is important to note the difference between: "If they were to get married..." as opposed to "They are not getting married because..." While they seem (and in many grammatical cases happen to be) interchangeable, skewed information does not allow someone coming to the article to determine how to take the information for themselves. This is also against the spirit of the authoress's (and most mangaka's) vague commentary regarding her work in order to leave certain things open to interpretation.

My "points of view" suggested as revisions are collections of canon evidence (I hope it won't be necessary to start taking exact talleys and page numbers) or requests to change inaccurate wording. "Many" is used when he comments on her kindness twice. Teasing her "Any given opportunity, especially at the times she shows her affections openly" happens once (displaying her affections, in regards to the incident with Lust) while he teases others with whom he has far fewer scenes (Havoc, Ed, Olivier) more times total. A tendency to take extreme and dangerous measures to protect a subordinate is written as a special treatment of Hawkeye, despite being displayed towards Ross, Ed (when he discovered Ed was out in Central unguarded with Scar prowling about), Havoc, and is acknowledged by Bradley as a consistent character trait. Madame Christmas is well informed and risks her life for his cause working in his bar and her speech style to him is casual but friendly, regardless of fan interpretation. Ironically, Hawkeye's more formal, cold style in contrast to her friendlier, more feminine speech patterns with others (Ed, Rebecca, Fuery) is not given the same dissection.

If there are other areas of the wiki that you also feel are biased or even more problematic, I hope that people more invested in this wiki as a whole aspire to fix them. I am only aware of the Roy (and by proxy the Hawkeye) article. Someone had found the "confirmation" statement of Arakawa's here and asked for verification; therefore, misinformation discredits the site and is in fact harmful to people seeking accurate information, which I, perhaps mistakenly, assume is the purpose of this wiki.

Note that I am not even requesting the wiki state that they are not canon because they are not proven canon. While my interpretation is obviously that they are not in such a relationship, I think that an objective look at the series itself is the best display of such. I'm sorry that you do not feel the same way about your interpretation of them as a couple, in spite of it being a common one.

If my understanding that a wiki was first and foremost about information (not speculation presented as fact such that it obstructcs Arakawa's trademark capacity for open interpretation that you're very well aware of as a long time fan) was mistaken, then by all means leave it be and accept my snarkiest of apologies. 24.32.255.102 16:47, May 3, 2011 (UTC)Zel

Oh, the drama! Of course you are welcome to make suggestions, but here's what I think:

- first, being the subject you're suggesting so controversial (and you may think that the facts are not 'controversial', but in reality they are, as you yourself are showing so), this shouldn't be decided between the two of us, let alone change profoundly one of the biggest articles of the wikia "on your first day here" just "because I don't agree with it or think its biased". The whole concept of a wikia is of a contributional content and not a personal imposition

- second, that, in order to make a better discussion out of it, it would be nice for you to be a part of the community. Being a occasional user making minor changes and additions is one thing but, to propose bigger changes as you are, it's important that we have a greater contact from you, to have a 'page' attached to your ip, a user talk page, etcetera. If you are so keen into making this wikia better and more accurate, you're more than welcome to join us, but, please, do it so the "right way", by taking part of the activities of the users who contribute here and not just come and say "you're doing it wrong".

- third, if you're really so interested in the contents of this wikia, than, please, don't restrain your attention just to this article. We have many articles to manage, many things to add and to improve and all help is welcome! To come here and complain about this one thing in one article you're not confortable with is not productive to us at all. Take part of it! If you have a deep knowledge of FMA and can help us, don't hesitate in doing so, instead of obsessing about a detail in one article. If you're so worried about accuracy, than put that concern into good use. Turdaewen 03:46, May 6, 2011 (UTC)

Appearance
Now, isn't his appearance section a bit too... poetic? I mean, hair falling dangerously over his eyes? I think the section should be a bit more neutral - not everyone likes Roy afterall (I myself have nothing against him, but even Ed's description is more neutral). Kiadony 18:18, April 20, 2010 (UTC)

True...perhaps it could use some revision. ^^; The reason I left appearance out in the first place is that all I could really see was that he had black hair and black eyes and, with the picture right there in plain sight, I figured a description was a tad unnecessary. But after Turdaewen pointed out his taste for neutral colors and formal dress, I thought I'd elaborate a little. Seems I went too far XP. CorbeauKarasu 18:37, April 20, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it did come out a little too poetic. Awesomely fun to read, though. XD I'll see if I can help take it down a nodge. (but one thing is right: it certainly looks like something Roy himself would say. XD) Turdaewen 20:25, April 20, 2010 (UTC)

Roy Mustang's rank in the end
If I'm not mistaken, he's "only" a 3-star general in the end, not 4-star. Doesn't that make him Lieutenant General then, instead of General?

No... Lieutenant General is actually 2 stars General, so Roy is actually General, which is the first rank under Führer. If you still have doubts about it, you can look at this Rank List and also this image from Chapter 83. As you can see, Grumman, who was a Lieutenant General, had only 2 stars in his insignia.Turdaewen 03:19, June 20, 2010 (UTC)

In the Manga, he clearly has 4 stars when he is standing next to Riza. This implies he became Führer after he settled things in Ishbal. Grumman was just holding the position for him. He is also wearing the same hat and trench coat that Grumman was when he was Führer.CrimsonDuelist 05:34, July 5, 2010 (UTC)

He only has three stars: http://mangastream.com/read/fullmetal_alchemist/37981928/108.

For what it is worth, he is most certainly depicted as Führer here. Roy's Final Look in the Animehttp://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb21710/common/skins/common/blank.gif CrimsonDuelist 18:23, July 7, 2010 (UTC)

What makes you believe that? I'll accept it if the episode states it outright - verbally - but if you're going by his style of dress, that's another story. Both the military hat and dark coat are not exclusive to the rank of Führer and have been worn by many military officers in the past, Mustang included. I was thinking that perhaps a clarification of the symbol on his shoulders would tell us just how far he's been promoted, but to my knowledge the anime does not show us what lies under his coat. Therefore, there is absolutely no confirmation that Roy has become Führer by the end of the anime. I have a personal policy not to watch the episode until FUNimation puts it up on their website each week, but if anyone who's seen the episode can tell me whether Roy's standing is described out loud, I won't have to wait until tomorrow morning to be sure. I will wat until then to decide whether or not to remove "Führer" from Roy Mustang's known ranks altogether. For what it's worth, I'm sure he will become Führer at some point, but I doubt seriously that he has done so by the end of the anime. The manga seems to make it clear that he hasn't yet and the scene you're depicting is a near-identical recreation of the manga scene. CorbeauKarasu 20:40, July 7, 2010 (UTC)

@CrimsonDuelist As the guy above me said, that kind of garb is not exclusive to the Fuhrer. He also wore the same outfit here: http://www.onemanga.com/Full_Metal_Alchemist/16/09/, http://www.onemanga.com/Full_Metal_Alchemist/16/11/, http://www.onemanga.com/Full_Metal_Alchemist/16/12/. That was during Hughes' funeral, when Roy was still Colonel. I've also watched the anime and there wasn't a single hint that Roy became Fuhrer. I understand that anime-only people might arrive to the conclusion that he's already Fuhrer, because the scene was pretty vague and the people around Riza and Hawkeye seemed intimidated presumably by Roy plus the mustache and all, but even then that will just be speculation on their part as there isn't anything in the anime that makes this clear and indesputable. Telling them what actually happened in the manga should settle the matter.

Actually, Arakawa has stated in some interviews after FMA ended that, if she would make any new "extras" to FMA, it would be to show Roy becoming a Führer. Which means, he will probably become Führer, but hasn't become just yet.

In the Manga, in the epilogue, he's portrayed as having 3 stars, which means he's a General of the Army, which is one rank under Führer. As so to inform those who haven't read the manga, Roy abdicated his position as Führer for the time being to fullfill a promise to Dr. Knox and rebuilding Ishval is not something you do in 4, 5 years. Roy is too young to become Führer just yet (as Arakawa herself also stated) and there's still many things he'll have to do to get there. So, FMA being as realistic a story as it is, it wouldn't make sense for a Colonel to just up and become Führer overnight because of a coup. He would have to be promoted by 4 ranks at once to be that, and that's very unrealistic.

So, he's a Brigadier General 2 years after the end of the events (as stated in the manga) and, later, in the epilogue, a General of the Army after about 4-5 years (estimative) after defeating Father.

Hold on your horses and don't jump to conclusions right way! ^_^ He'll get there, but this is an Arakawa's manga and not a Disney movie. Turdaewen 19:01, July 18, 2010 (UTC)

Last bit of trivia
The last trivia on the page... I'm kind of iffy about it. "The only character to have his toll returned to him"

Al's toll was his entire body and he got that back too, so technically that's not true, right?

I wish we could rephrase that better. Roy was the only one to have his toll returned without a tremendous sacrifice to get it back, just a little vile of stone. Meanwhile for Al to get his body back, his brother had to sacrifice his ENTIRE GATE.

What do you think? The way it is now, it's just kinda iffy.I don't really know how to change it though. Tommy-Vercetti 19:13, June 20, 2010 (UTC)

I guess the best would be to not to mention anything of the sort. We all know he got his sight back and that he sacrificed the Ishvalan stone for it, so I don't think there's need to state such a thing. Turdaewen 12:50, June 21, 2010 (UTC)

voice actor
just thought i'd say that Travis Willingham also is the voice actor for love aikawa a character from the bleach manga/anime, who uses a fire type weapon.Soul reaper magnum 10:31, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

Trivia
Hey, this trivia is a bit iffy to me, so I thought I'd ask first before adding it.

I always wondered why Roy was able to get his eyesight back from a simple flash of stone so easily. Technically Ed and anyone else would have been able to use that too.

But, I heard an interesting point today. Everyone else got what they deserved, they commited a sin. Hohenheim says it when he fixes Izumi a bit. But, Roy was able to bring back his sight so easily because he was forced to open the gate, therefore is technically still innocent. Right? Like, Izumi couldn't have retrieved her organs for a simple vile, because Truth gave her a consequence for her action.

I was thinking of adding something like that, like a speculation about why Mustang was able to restore his sight so easily.

What do you think? Tommy-Vercetti 17:01, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I've always had a similar theory regarding that. Since Roy was forced through against his will and the actual transmutation was done by Pride using a Philosopher's Stone as toll (since his stone energy was depleted when it was over) and the knowledge of the Gold-Toothed Alchemist, I always figured that nothing was actually taken from Roy and that his blindness was psychosomatic just like Al's memory loss after having seen the Gate. It makes enough sense and, personally, I thought there was enough evidence to support it, but it never came up explicitly. Maybe because they didn't like the idea of Roy having less mental grit than Edward? It isn't like we can list that here, but I like to think that Roy went back into the Gate for his eyes and was told by Truth "You still have your sight. Quit being such a baby and open your eyes." something i found strange is that everybody else lost a part of there body, but roy didn't lose his eyes he just lost his eyesight.Soul reaper magnum 10:35, June 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know if we should explicitly mention these theories, but I think it would be perfectly all right to note that Roy was able to get his eyesight back from the Gate even though Van had suggested to Izumi that, as punishment for her sin, the return of her the physical toll was impossible.
 * Then again, it could merely have been that only the people involved directly in the toll exchange can retrieve the physical tolls that were taken. Al had to go back to his own Gate to bring Ed's arm back and Ed had to go to the Gate to get Al's body back, but that's just because their souls were crossed and their Gates connected. It's possible that Van could only have gone to his own Gate, making it impossible to retrieve Izumi's organs for her, in which case, Roy venturing to his own Gate with a replacement toll would have made it possible to retrieve his own eyes. CorbeauKarasu 17:27, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

I don`t think Arawaka would go that far into making such a event on Roy and not explaining it later.

At least in my point of view, Arakawa doesn`t care much about the amount of "loss" of going through the Gate, but something in relation to the symbolic meaning of that loss. So, it's not the amount of flesh the alchemist loses, but, as Father has stated, a sort of punishment for one's atitudes. But, contrary to what Father understands, it's not given as a Punishment in and for itself, but as a opportunity of growth given by the Truth to that alchemist.

As Arakawa says "life teaches us through hard lessons". Arakawa indicates in the last meeting between Edward and the Truth, the Truth`s objective in taking "something from them" is to give those alchemists an opportunity of understanding a little better the "Meaning of life", in a sense. To make them undestand that there are no "shortcuts" to life`s accomplishments and that the humans shouldn`t rely in something other them themselves to solve their problems.

So, looking at the situation in that sense, Roy didn`t lost his sight because "he was forced into the gate", but because the way the Truth found to "teach Roy" of his faults was by talking his sight (along with his pride). And just as Edward has adquired the knowledge to get Al back from the Portal by realising what he was meant to learn by the Truth (to rely on others and understanding the importance of friendship), Roy adquired the condition to get his sight back once he gave up his position as Führer for the greater good (which, in this case, would mean for him to reconstruct what he destroyed in Ishval), overcoming his pride into wanting to become Führer under any circunstances.

I think it`s very hard to understand the logic of the Gate of Truth only by measuring things in a material sense. As many other things in FMA, it only makes sense in symbolic terms, in a process of self-perfecting, which is the basis of Alchemy.Turdaewen 13:23, August 3, 2010 (UTC)

Wait a sec...
...Where did his date of birth came from again? Kiadony 11:33, June 26, 2010 (UTC)

Nowhere. Roy, like all other characters in FMA, have no birth dates, Only a few of them have dates in FMA 1, but both in the manga and in FMA:B, no character has Bloodtypes, birth dates or anything of that sort. Most these said "birth dates" are fan-created and have no official record to back it up whatsoever. In fact, quite the contrary, we have words from Arakawa herself saying she hasn't decided on the birthdates of any of her characters.

We know, however, the year Roy was born, because he turns 30 during the story (remembering that the series takes place in 1914) and because that, especifically, is stated in the Perfect Guidebook, which also states Hughes is the same age as Roy.187.21.58.98 18:53, July 18, 2010 (UTC)

Is he not given a birthdate for the 2003 anime series. As much as I'd like to go with Arakawa's assertion that she hasn't given her characters birthdates, that isn't quite the same as denouncing the use of birthdates. If Roy's birthday was announced as that day in the 2003 anime factbooks or something, there isn't anything to refute it. The case is different for Edward, whose birthday is not the same in the 2003 anime and manga storylines, given the events surrounding it in the anime and the way he ages in the manga. Assuming that their calendar is more or less identical to ours, given that they do live on Earth in the manga, and judging by the way people around him talk about how close he is to turning 16, it would make sense to assume his birthday is late in the year - during the timeskip, rather than in February. I guess that's a wordy way to say "if there is an official document that states Roy's birthday as September 29th, it might be prudent to keep that date up. If not, well...never mind. CorbeauKarasu 21:41, July 18, 2010 (UTC)

And that's the thing: there isn't. Even in Edward's case she says his birthday is in the winter but just after that, she states that where she comes from (Hokkaido) winter lasts for 6 months, which means she does not take this very seriously. In fact, she literally says with every word she hasn't decided on ANY birthday.

IF there's a date to his bday, than it's only on FMA 1. I can't say for sure, cause, honestly, I've never read the guides to the 2003 FMA series, but trully doubt there is, or we would have heard/seen about it already. On the other hand, the information on his birth year and about Arakawa saying she doesn't define birth dates, I have sources for both (the first being Perfect Guidebook 1, in the timeline: http://www.zomgfta.com/hagaren/timeline.html and the second in the omake of volume 12: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v668/Shirokage/FMA-lchd/fma-lchd12-01.jpg)Turdaewen 22:15, July 18, 2010 (UTC)

It is true
I just watched the final episode.

Read the manga chapter again, Roy is doing nothing but wallowing in agony in the medical tent, saying he has no other plans and even Knox agrees "You have to retire" and it's only Marcoh who gives him the idea to reform Ishbal because he CAN get his eyesight back.

Now watch the anime. Even while blind, Mustang is being coached by all his men, and seems like he's ready to reach the top, even while blinded. No one in the anime ever says "Retire".

That's why I added it. It's pretty obvious to see the difference from how he acts in both medias. I actually prefered the anime because he didn't just start whining and give up. Tommy-Vercetti 13:25, July 7, 2010 (UTC)

I see. First of all, the way you phrased it made it sound as if Roy's story just ended with him going blind in the manga and that nothing happened afterward. Additionally, I haven't seen the final episode yet and know only of the manga chapter, in which - despite Knox urging him to retire - Mustang professes that even without his sight and the ability to become Fuhrer, there are still things he can do to help. He wasn't merely helpless and mopey, just realistic about his prospects as Commander-in-Chief without his eyesight. At least that was what happened in the translation I read. CorbeauKarasu 14:08, July 7, 2010 (UTC)

I can rephrase it, but that's what I initially meant. See what you think after watching the final episode first though.Tommy-Vercetti 14:15, July 7, 2010 (UTC)

I don't see it as him "wallowing in agony"... Although he might have been in a difficult situation, it would be a little OOC for Roy to just "give up", cause he never did, even after becoming blind. He might have been in a difficult position, trying to figure out what would be the best thing to do, looking for a way to carry on, but that's very different than just sit around waiting for the world to crumble around him. His character is very different between FMA 1 and FMA:B, and one of the biggest differences in that sense is precisely that: the Manga's Roy Mustang doesn't just "accept" things and give up. The author herself already stated that a couple of times and I think it's important to state that difference as to not lead people into characterising Roy in a way that he's not.Turdaewen 19:00, July 18, 2010 (UTC)

Lust`s Death
It`s in the trivia sector:

"Ironically, the Homunculus he defeated was a representation of his womanizing or lust, which is arguably his biggest vice"

And I was questioning three concepts in this statement. First, if we could affirm that Arakawa putted this death with the intention of representing the overcoming of a vice, especially since the Homunculi are a representation of a vice itself and not a vice from an especific character. If the answer to the last statement is yes, to which Homunculi we could apply the concept of "representative death" in the way that is putted in this sentence, since I guess it would be pushing the limits to state, for example, Armstrong`s biggest vice as being slothness...

Second, if we could affirm that Mustang is a womanizer, or a lustful character, cause, although it`s largely assumed by many, we never actually see any proof of anything beyond flirting. The only times we actually see Mustang with a woman during the series, it`s an informant and, most of his serious times, he`s quite contrary to the idea of a lustful man (the Blue Gaiden, for example). So, where is the limit between his true character as a person and his behaviour in certain situations?

I mean, I also have my doubts about this and can`t really make up my mind as to defining if he is or if he`s not, but I think it's a fine line to cross as to categorize him as a womanizer.

Third, what I think is really questionable is to put (whether he is or not a lustful person) as one of his "biggest vice". It`s very pushing to put his womanizing facade as being bigger than his laziness towards work, or his pride towards his position and power, or his greed to want to become Führer...

Summarizing, I think this is statement is a lot more of "trying to fit the situation to an already pre-stated logic" than to actually build a logic through a situation analysis or "trying to make the person fit the outfit instead of making the outfit to fit the person."

So, I`m still kinda not entirely convinced that this is "factual" enough to be stated.

What could be said is that, the idea of Lust being killed by Roy was one of the first things to be defined by Arakawa as she was making the manga (contrary to, for example, the death of Wrath by the hands of Scar, since Scar was meant to die in that fight when Arakawa first thought the series through) and she has mentioned once she decided Roy should do it because of his fire powers and as a reference to the punishment to lustful people in the Divine Comedy, by Dante...Turdaewen 18:02, August 3, 2010 (UTC)

Take into context all the ones who defeated Homunuli alone. Can you connect ANY other of the sins to Roy other than Lust? It's true that Arakawa thought of it first and not Wrath/Scar, Ed/Pride, but you have to admit it still adds up perfectly well. Why does it hurt to have it? It's not like it's false, and it's just something to think about. It's interesting trivia, which is the point of trivia.

And unless someone higher up, like CK actually agrees with you, I don't see a need to remove and I will keep restoring it. There's no reason to remove it. You take trivia way too seriously. Notice how a lot of other pages have "could be" facts, something ot think about. This is the same thing. Hohenheim's "Does he burn off complete souls in alchemy?" That was never a fact even stated in the story, but it's still interesting and a point, and it's not removed. So why should this be removed when it's exactly the same? Tommy-Vercetti 17:29, September 24, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah... maybe I´m taking a little too seriously. XD Let´s leave it up to CK to define what he thinks is best, then... My problem is more with the idea that "Roy´s biggest vice would be Lust", because for me, he hasn´t shown a single moment of Lust during the series... but since is trivia, I guess you´re right that we can provide a sort of "theory" from ourselves to it. So, there's no need to be agressive, I just think that, as editors to this wikia, we should discuss things further before securing whether something should be put in the pages or not. And that´s what these discussion pages are for. Turdaewen 02:23, October 12, 2010 (UTC)

Moustache
I think this confirms that his moustache is, ahem, canon, at least for anime: image. I found it on the forum, and it's supposedly from Animage magazine. So perhaps the trivia note should be changed a little, and fan speculation bit removed. Kiadony 15:41, September 17, 2010 (UTC)

I agree the fan speculation should be removed, it were a marker, it'd be more obvious, like purple, or squiggly, something. But damn, even in the picture, that mustache looks like two turds he slid down his upper lip.Tommy-Vercetti 23:08, September 17, 2010 (UTC)

Well, and Riza's expression also suggests that she isn't very happy with this new feature of Roy's... Kiadony 06:52, September 18, 2010 (UTC)

Left hand
Putting it here, since the edit line wasn't long enough. That trivia point has bothered me for a bit, but i was too busy to look it up until last night. Looking again through all of the manga, Roy doesn't ever use his left hand in Flame alchemy except in the Military Festival Bonus Chapter and on the Promised Day. All other times, it's his right hand. Remember that when the character is facing you, your left is his right. He did use his left hand when fighting Envy, yes, and that picture in the Flame Alchemy section is from the 2003 anime, so I don't know what's up with that. CorbeauKarasu 18:49, October 9, 2010 (UTC)

Or are you trying to say that, during that one day when he used his left hand at all, he kept starting with his attacks with the left? That might be interesting, but then again, it would likely be due to the fact that he appears to use his left hand for precision attacks while his right is assigned wide-area conflagrations. CorbeauKarasu 18:53, October 9, 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the background in that 2003 anime picture, it could only have come from either the rubble of the parade grounds at the Military Festival fight against Edward or the time he and Armstrong attacked the Elric brothers after they went AWOL. Since Roy is using his left hand in the shot, It'd be a safe bet to assume the former, in which case, not only did he use his right hand for the whole fight, but didn't use his left hand until it was time for his final surprise move. CorbeauKarasu 19:02, October 9, 2010 (UTC)

Relationships category
Corbeau, I was actually thinking of divinding other articles' relationship section as well, since they, sometimes, have too many information, or even require a little more development. I don't know what you think of it... ^^ Turdaewen 15:01, May 2, 2011 (UTC)

I don't know about that, honestly. I think it's better to keep the sections as succinct and straightforward as possible. It's all well and good to include and discuss more personal aspects and you've added some important information that i may have missed, but I feel like Roy and Riza's sections toward each other contain a bit too much info as it is. Information about their personalities should be relegated to the personality section and information about the characters actual dealings with each other should be relegated to the "Part in the Story" section. I had actually considered making them subcategories in the past, but felt it cluttered things up too much. CorbeauKarasu 15:52, May 2, 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I was thinking about extending other categories, especially about Maes Hughes and to add one about Berthold Hakweye (although we do have little information about that), specially since we're expecting some new info to come out with the FMA Chronicles, in July... In regards to the section of Roy and Riza, I was actually trying to write some more suscint and, as you said "to the point", since we have better grounds for being more objective, now.Turdaewen 16:59, May 2, 2011 (UTC)

I'm not so sure it's necessary to add Berthold to the relationship section for Roy, though I can't really object to the idea. Adding more information to Maes' section, however, is unnecessary. Any further information we find from a new source would likely need to be added to the personality/abilities sections of the character in question and not to the relationships section, save for new facts one or two short sentences in length. CorbeauKarasu 20:09, May 2, 2011 (UTC)